The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Victims of Communism Day - 2022
Why May Day should be a day to honor victims of an ideology that took tens of millions of lives. But we should also be open to alternative dates if they can attract broader support.

NOTE: This post largely reprints last year's Victims of Communism Day post, with some modifications.
Today is May Day. Since 2007, I have advocated using this date as an international Victims of Communism Day. I outlined the rationale for this proposal (which was not my original idea) in my very first post on the subject:
May Day began as a holiday for socialists and labor union activists, not just communists. But over time, the date was taken over by the Soviet Union and other communist regimes and used as a propaganda tool to prop up their [authority]. I suggest that we instead use it as a day to commemorate those regimes' millions of victims. The authoritative Black Book of Communism estimates the total 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. And May Day is the most fitting day to do so….
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 comparably 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 the lion's share 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 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. The regime continues to hold on to power by means of repression, despite growing international and domestic opposition.
In Russia, the authoritarian regime of former KGB Colonel Vladimir Putin has embarked on a wholesale whitewashing of communism's historical record. Putin's brutal and indefensible invasion of Ukraine probably owes more to Russian nationalist ideology than communism. But it is nonetheless fed in part by his desire to recapture the supposed power and glory of the Soviet Union, and his long-held belief that the collapse of the USSR was "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century."
In China, the Communist Party remains in power (albeit after having abandoned many of its previous socialist economic policies), and has recently become less tolerant of criticism of the mass murders of the Mao era (part of a more general turn towards greater repression).
The Chinese regime's repressive policies also played a major role in its initial attempts to cover up the coronavirus crisis, which probably forestalled any chance of containing it before it became a massive pandemic. The brutal mass lockdowns entailed by the government's "zero Covid" policies also have much in common with the communist totalitarian legacy.
Perhaps worst of all its recent atrocities, China's horrific repression of the Uighur minority is reminiscent of similar policies under Mao and Stalin, though it has not - yet? - reached the level of actual mass murder. But imprisoning over 1 million people in horrific concentration camps is more than bad enough.
In a 2012 post, I explained why May 1 is a better date for Victims of Communism Day than the available alternatives, such as November 7 (the anniversary of the Bolshevik seizure of power in Russia) and August 23 (the anniversary of the Nazi-Soviet Pact). I also addressed various possible objections to using May Day, including claims that the date should be reserved for the celebration of labor unions.
But, as explained in my 2013 Victims of Communism Day post, I would be happy to support a different date if it turns out to be easier to build a consensus around it. If another date is chosen, I would prefer November 7; not out of any desire to diminish the significance of communist atrocities in other nations, but because it marks the establishment of the very first communist regime. November 7 has in fact been declared Victims of Communism Memorial Day by three state legislatures. Then-president Trump issued similar declarations in 2017 and 2018 (though he did not have the authority to make it a permanent national holiday through executive action alone).
If this approach continues to spread, I would be happy to 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 7.
I am also more than willing to endorse almost any other date that could command broad support. Unless and until that happens, however, May 1 will continue to be Victims of Communism Day at the Volokh Conspiracy.
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
We need a day to Remember the Victims of the Lawyer Profession. Yes, Mao killed 45 million. The US lawyer hierarchy, a group of Ivy indoctrinated scumbags, killed 60 million babies. Then, to get rid of Trump, the Democrat lawyer scumbag shut down the economy. The resulting $4 trillion drop in world GDP killed 200 million people by starvation. The employers of the scumbags, the tech billionaires, scored $1.7 trillion extra income in the US and $2 trillion in China.
Republicans controlled the WH, Senate, and the majority of state governments. How is it the Ds fault? And how did the Ds somehow manage to shut down the world economy?
The Democrat governors shut down their states. Federal courts, filled with Ivy indoctrinated scumbags on the bench, supported them. The aim was to take down the economy, and the stock market, to take out Trump. He would have been a shoo in as the greatest President since Washington. They copied the model of the Chinese Commie Party. Our oligarchs and their oligarchs did great. This, fake shutdown, is the greatest scam, scoring the most in history, and killing millions by starvation around the world.
Trump was a weak leader. He should have arrested these Governors for treason, tried them, and executed them, to save millions around the world. There was early warning of this massive fatal consequence by the World Food Programme of the UN, in February, 2020.
Want to end the economic shutdown and quickly? Elect a Democrat lawyer as President. Despite multiple surges in Covid under Biden? No shutdown.
1) May 1 is a bad choice. Regardless of how it started, May 1, worldwide, is about more than communism. Labor activism is not communist, and conflating the two is not going to go well.
2) Because the right cannot help from redbaiting everything even to this day, this is not a good idea for a holiday until that nonsense comes to a close. Otherwise it'll be a 'Be a dumbass about liberalism Day' which for many is everyday, but we needn't recognize it.
Commie is a continuous measure. The labor unions have a lot of Commie in them, and a whole lot of rent seeking. In rent seeking, thugs force people to hand over money and return nothing of value.
"Labor activism" is, basically, racketeering. Using criminal means to extort the employer.
Communism is, basically, an excuse to steal from people and to enslave them.
I support Prof. Somin's proposal.
Ever hear of Bernie Sanders? AOC? Hell, Obama is a "red," even if he doesn't say so.
There's nothing liberal about today's Democratic Party.
Proving a lot of what I’m saying.
Zero tolerance for Commie nor for its collaborators.
Most Democrats treat the few liberal members of the party like the second coming of Ronald Reagan -- their behavior towards Manchin and Sinema is terrible. The champions, the ones who get the base excited, are largely red diaper babies.
A plurality of Democrats today left liberalism far behind and are way out towards totalitarianism on the political horseshoe.
Yeah you are using the cute hipster definition of liberal.
The GOP is much worse on their apostates.
I'm using the classical definition of liberal. I have no idea what the cute hipster definition might be.
Yeah, no one uses that definition, except people*really* into semantic games.
It's not going anywhere, but some folks like to show how well they know their history of philosophical terminology, even as they ignore the actual real language of today.
"We stole that word fair and square, you can't use it's original definition anymore!"
Language evolves, Brett.
I think FDR's Four Freedoms is as much about real liberty as you think your pinched economic view is.
Being salty that political terminology has changed over the past century is just silly at best, and petty at worst.
Really? I am in Ohio. I am a loyal GOP member who got exiled by John Kasich's minions because I was a good government advocate working from the inside. I even supported his run for president.
It was the moderate Republicans who forced me out, not the Conservatives. So I will keep running with the people who respect my loyalty.
The GOP - the national party - recently censured people for factually describing the 2020 election.
Your personal issues seem personal. Anyone calling Kasich an extremist, and themselves the moderate don't really understand political moderation.
"The GOP - the national party - recently censured people for factually describing the 2020 election."
No, they didn't. Literally, they did not.
On February 4, 2022, the Republican National Committee called the events of January 6, 2021, "legitimate political discourse" and overwhelmingly voted to censure Cheney and Representative Adam Kinzinger by voice vote for taking part in the House investigation of the Capitol assault.
You split hairs in defense of some fucked up shit, Brett.
The communists chose to hijack May 1 when it was already an existing holiday. That's on them too:
"In 1889, it was chosen as the date for International Workers' Day by the Second International, to commemorate the Haymarket affair in Chicago and the struggle for an eight-hour working day.[6] As a result, International Workers' Day is also called "May Day", but the two are unrelated."
In 1889.
What about today? I'm thinking about today.
Red baiting: "the act of attacking or persecuting as a Communist or as communistic"
But there are 80-100 million reasons why attacking or persecuting Communists is a noble thing to do. Indeed, a great many problems our nation faces today are due to having not done enough of it.
After WWII, we should have gone after our native Communist sympathizers in the same way we went after Nazi sympathizers.
The notion that 'red baiting' is a bad thing is predicated on the lie that there aren't any real Reds around to bait, so all the victims will be innocent. We saw that in The Crucible's using witch hunts as a metaphor for the treatment of communists.
But, of course, the communists are horribly real.
Thoughtcrime, Brett?
Don't you think it's a bit nervy for Democrats to talk about "redbaiting", given their habit of calling anybody they dislike to the right of Bernie Sanders a "Nazi"?
You'll actually find Marxism being taught in universities, so it's not as though communists are uncommon on the left, or systematically rejected.
First, your deflection to the left is boring and noted.
Second, Marxist analysis has nothing to do with communism. Not that you'd have any idea about that stuff, you just want to further your paranoid narrative of communists in schools, in Hollywood, in media, in corporations, in big tech, in climate science.
I mean, this shit is diagnosable at this point.
"Second, Marxist analysis has nothing to do with communism."
Good grief. That's like saying Adam Smith has nothing to do with capitalism.
As I said, you don't care to learn. Google for just a moment, maybe.
"Marxist analysis has nothing to do with communism"
'Nothing to do'????
I wonder who wrote 'The Communist Manifesto'?
Come on, you're smarter than that. Are you saying that's all that Marx ever did, and everything else was in service of this one work?
That's as reductive as saying everything Einstein did was about gravity.
I'm saying that Marx literally wrote the book on communism - and so saying marxism has 'nothing to do' with communism is ... I dunno, like saying Einstein has nothing to do with relativity. Or Darwin has nothing to do with natural selection, etc, etc, etc.
Marx did a lot of stuff, a lot of which is called Marxism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism
For the political ideology commonly associated with states governed by communist parties, see Marxism–Leninism.
Farther down in that page: "According to The Oxford Handbook of Karl Marx, "Marx used many terms to refer to a post-capitalist society—positive humanism, socialism, Communism, realm of free individuality, free association of producers, etc. He used these terms completely interchangeably. The notion that 'socialism' and 'Communism' are distinct historical stages is alien to his work and only entered the lexicon of Marxism after his death."
'nothing to do'????????
Yes, Marx did some stuff with Communism He defined it, and he rather liked it. You have done a great job showing that.
But that doesn't mean all teaching of techniques Marx came up with are teaching communism, even if they're named after him.
This is like guilt by association, but for concepts? It's really shallow.
I think we're on the same page now: "did some stuff" != "nothing to do".
"Nothing to do" might be an overclaim. I'm reasonably sure Marx believed his work was all inter-related.
But I'm willing to be wrong. What Marxist analysis has 'nothing to do' with communism?
<a href="https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-gop-primary-for-ohio-senate-will-be-a-test-for-trump-but-probably-a-win-for-trumpism/A current article up at Nate Silver's 538.
"Moderate Rep. Tim Ryan is backed by establishment figures like Brown and former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and has wide leads in the few Democratic primary polls that have been released. But Ryan has also angered the left wing of the party with recent campaign ads in which he vilifies China for the plight of American workers, and at least one progressive group has endorsed former Consumer Financial Protection Bureau senior adviser Morgan Harper (though others have notably kept their powder dry)."
Say anything to you that a candidate can piss off the left wing of your party by vilifying a totalitarian communist dictatorship currently carrying out a genocide? And that a writer at an only moderately left wing site wouldn't even consider it particularly remarkable?
I don't think you've quite internalized how deeply penetrated by communism the Democratic party has become.
Cleaned up link.
Think for just a moment, Brett, why a party might want to blame wage issues on something other than China.
Any reasons occur to you, other than wanting to cozy up to commies? Like maybe a more useful narrative than nationalism?
Naw, lets say the Dems love China because they're communists. You know, like that big commie Joe Biden.
You really got this narrativism problem where you choose strained explanations that given a moment's thought don't hold water. But they feel true to this worldview you're really committed to, causing you to type some ridiculous stuff.
Just think for a moment why left-wingers might be angry that you vilify a communist dictatorship, instead of making excuses for it. Look, if somebody blamed high unemployment on pedophiles, I'd think they were an idiot, I might try to correct them about that, but I wouldn't get mad, because vilifying pedophiles is a free action.
Vilifying communist dictatorships engaged in genocide is hilariously redundant. Who gets mad about that? It's like getting angry because somebody vilifies Hitler!
Except that the left wing of the Democratic party doesn't think Communist China is villainous.
I can think of lots of reasons - you're the one jumping with certainty to some kind of zombie 'must defend communism' when China is barely communist these days anyhow.
I'm not making excuses, I'm pointing out your outcome-oriented conclusion jumping. Getting huffy that I must love communism because I don't buy your random explanation of a specific Democratic Party shows how easily you reach for redbaiting nonsense.
Are there pro-China tankies? Sure. But they are the types who don't vote, much less be in charge of the Democratic Party.
In that case, why should labor get May 1st, either? May Day is a lot older than 'labor' as a movement. It was originally a celebration of the start of summer (being located about halfway between the equinox and the solstice).
It was only at the 2nd International in 1889 that it was declared International Workers Day, and the date 'May 1st' was chosen by the communists (the Marxist International Socialist Congress). So you can't really claim celebrating May 1st as Labor Day is independent of communism.
I'd note that the US celebrates Labor Day on a completely different day, so May 1st isn't even labor day in the US.
I don't care who gets what day, but I think if your choice will piss off a lot of people unrelated to communism, you should maybe stop tilting at windmills and insisting that you have the prior claim from the 1800s.
No one in real life cares.
I just want to be clear - is this a general proposition that the history of an object or institution (and a holiday is an institution) doesn't matter?
So you'd be okay with
-someone flying a confederate flag today
-statues of confederate leaders on public lands
People in real life (rightly) care a great deal about history in these instances (and others). Why is this instance a special case where the history doesn't matter?
No one has taken back the Confederate Flag.
I think you're missing the point. There's certainly controversy over the use of the confederate flag today because of its history. Should we just ignore its history because flying the flag makes people happy?
... some people happy.
If the confederate flag gets adopted by some benign group for like a century, I'll consider it.
Isn't a lot of the assertions today (at least some of) those groups aren't benign because they use the confederate flag?
And it's not like relatively benign universities and museums who have public monuments to various historical figures that are on the outs with extremely left individuals haven't suffered controversy because they had those monuments. I mean, the Natural History Museum in New York recently bundled off their Teddy Roosevelt statue because it was controversial. I find it hard to believe the Natural History Museum is malignant. It was purely about the history of the subject of the statue.
Now, maybe you think going after Roosevelt is nonsense. Fair. But it seems to me if I spent enough time at this, we'd find something where you thought the history was determinative no matter who was involved or how long ago the problems were.
As opposed to the left wing who has, at one time or another, called anyone to the right of Hubert Humphrey a fascist or Nazi?
May 1 was celebrated in the Communist World, with military parades. It's the perfect day to remember the many millions who were victims of Communism.
Labor activists who are not Communists can pick another day. I suggest that the first Monday in September be named Labor Day, and we can recognize those achievements then. (Unless someon already beat me to that date.)
You're smarter than to just deflect left. If overusing Nazi is shitty, so is redbaiting.
I don't care about what Commies loved and did - I care about what people now think about May 1.
Labor activists who are not Communists can pick another day.
Ah yes, the burden is on them to demonstrate they're not commies. Same old lame song from anti-labor redbaiting.
The Communists may have hijacked May 1, but it remains a symbol of communism. Just like the swastika is a symbol of Nazism, even though they appropriated it from India, where it is still used today.
No burden is on anyone. Since you did not get my sarcasm, the first Monday in September is already Labor Day. It has a history going back to the late 19th Century. Someone who merely wants to appreciate labor can use that day, as indeed many unions in this country do.
The communists didn't even hijack may 1st from labor - they *created* it. May 1st would not be 'labor day' anywhere without communists.
And yes, the first Monday in September is actually older than May 1st as labor day, but only in the US and Canada.
Communist atrocities don't upset me as much because they weren't done with our tax dollars.
Good point, the Holocaust didn't use any tax dollars either.
Well actually when I think about it, we used a lot of tax dollars to end both the Holocaust, and to curtail communism.
I'm with David. Take a look at this.
https://cultureshield.com/PDF/45_Goals.pdf
Except for a few that are out dated it is the platform for today's Democratic Party.
Hey guess what that list is bullshit. Backdated redbaiting. More illustrative of Bircherism than anything real in Communism or the Democratic Party,
Guess what, you commit the Fallacy of Irrelevance by your personal insults. That is the Democrat platform of today, son. Personal attacks is all the left has left. The facts abandoned Commie 100 years ago. Conservatives should begin to return the personal attacks, and to use government to crush the lawyer profession and all Commie.
Why not propose a bipartisan package, Prof. Somin, coupling enactment of a Victims Of Communism Day (you pick the date) with establishment of a Victims Of Right-Wing Racism Day (maybe August 28?)?
Rev, you resigned from your law firm yet? You need to STFU until you do.
The problem, as I say every year when you post this, is that anti-Communism is used as a means of attacking perfectly reasonable social programs. Even if you yourself don't want that, which isn't clear, that would be the inevitable result.
Indeed.
Zero tolerance for Commie and for its collaborators.
No enemies to the Left, huh.
Fell right into Hyman's trap.
What? The trap where he refuses to condemn communism's crimes against humanity because people might criticize something else?
That's not a trap, that's abdicating morality.
"he refuses to condemn communism's crimes against humanity"
He did no such thing.
Oh, he just thinks there shouldn't be a day to remember those victims.
How many tens of millions of deaths, and billions of people suffering, are enough?
By this ridiculous logic, we'd better get on a day for the victims of Mongol attrocities, lest we be thought to condone them!
I've got an idea: We can stop commemorating Communist atrocities when the last communist government falls, and people stop suggesting that it be tried again.
Replacing Michael P's logic with your own doesn't make his argument any less dumb.
Your logic I dealt with above - I'd be fine with a propaganda holiday for this purpose, though I don't know how useful it'll be. But people like you are why I think it's a bad idea. You'd turn this on the Democratic Party at the speed of light.
Congrats on ruining a fine idea with your partisan mania.
"…used as a means of attacking perfectly reasonable social programs."
Of which you offer zero examples.
On a related note, just about every retail business is hiring right now. So the need for "perfectly reasonable social programs" is currently relatively low.
Medicare, Obamacare, even Social Security, were attacked as being Communist, or the first step to Communism. I could give hundreds of examples and you could too.
How perfectly reasonable are they when they're all on the edge of bankruptcy?
If SS was a private company business model, the SEC would go after them as a pyramid scheme.
Note: I'm not calling them communist, just challenging the 'reasonable' claim.
SS is in fine shape. Your comment has no basis in reality.
"The projected reserve depletion date for the combined OASI and DI funds is 2034, also a year earlier than in last year's report. Over the 75-year projection period, Social Security faces an actuarial deficit of 3.54 percent of taxable payroll, increased from the 3.21 percent figure projected last year."
https://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/#:~:text=The%20projected%20reserve%20depletion%20date,than%20in%20last%20year%27s%20report.&text=Over%20the%2075-year%20projection,percent%20figure%20projected%20last%20year.
That's only if everybody stops paying payroll taxes tomorrow. Which of course is not going to happen.
Whatever problems SSA has can be cured by eliminating the cap on the payroll tax, which is the most regressive tax that exists.
"That's only if everybody stops paying payroll taxes tomorrow."
I think the '75% in 2034' numbers are if the status quo is maintained - neither current taxes nor benefits changed.
You're absolutely wrong. That's assuming an economic growth rate (those projections are probably optimistic if we slide into a recession, as looks likely).
If people stopped paying taxes, SS would be bankrupt immediately.
But sure, the people who run SS don't know what they're talking about. And you couldn't even be bothered to read what they have to say about the state of SS. You know better than the people who actually manage it.
You are completely wrong, and lying in order to support your viewpoint. You and your in-group have made a life's work of this.
I suppose in the sense that a Ponzi scam can be pretty long lived if the people running can shoot anybody who refuses to invest. But "fine shape" is a lie, if you mean in an accounting sense.
Lots of people say lots of things. So what?
One reason to warn about "the first step" is to make it harder to take the second, third, hundredth, and the last step.
As for Medicare and Social Security, it’s morally questionable that we should tax the poorest age groups so much to pay benefits to the richest age group.
And all of it, including Obamacare, will have to be restructured when the day comes that the US tries to borrow the first $1 to pay national debt interest. People don’t lend money to use to pay interest. The resulting financial crisis will mean will mean the US can no longer borrow money and it will be desperate times for everyone who depends on that borrowed money, or any government money. The only question is when that will happen.
(It could be avoided by some revolutionary technological breakthrough that causes very high economic growth. Otherwise it can’t be avoided.)
Putin, supposed arch-conservative and darling of the extreme Republican right, has been putting up statues of Lenin in captured areas of Ukraine.
Isn’t the idea that these totalitarian types are actually motivated by the ideologies-du-jour they spout a little silly? Isn’t the situation really more like George Orwell’s 1984, where these supposedly utterly opposing ideologies that stir up so much hatred avainst each other are actually pretty much all alike, in reality nothing more than means of stirring up hatred without any more actual content or use than that, any that serves the purpose will do?
It’s pretty clear at any rate that Putin, supposed arch-enemy of Communism, is a big admirer of Lenin and Stalin.
I mean, the Stalin regime and its derivatives were no more Communist in the sense of the classical principles of Communism than Trump was (or Putin is) a Christian in the sense of the classical principles of Christianity. They simply use these ideologies as instruments of power.
Hey, Trump is a huge Christian.
Maybe a 48 waist.
But seriously, Christians love Trump. White evangelicals are likely his most devoted fans. Which is probably part of the reason organized religion is fading in America, especially in the educated, modern, accomplished parts of our nation.
Rev, you still talking? STFU until you resign from your law firm and interview your diverse replacement.
Ideologies don't exist in their pure form in the real world.
And while Stalin may not have been ideologically communist, he (or others like him) are the inevitable result of communism in practice. When bureaucrats control everything, you don't get ideologues governing based on ideology, but bureaucrats manipulating a bureaucracy to oppress the population.
I tend to agree with you on communism resulting in dressed-up authoritarian every time, but that's not really what the proposed day addresses.
Yeah, so? And that guy trying to sell you the Brooklyn bridge doesn't have a clear title to it, either.
There are never 'Communist' regimes in any real sense, because communism doesn't work. Communism is a scam, an excuse for taking power. Only the marks believe in it.
"Isn’t the idea that these totalitarian types are actually motivated by the ideologies-du-jour they spout a little silly?"
Yes and no? Some totalitarian's behavior is ideologically driven, some isn't. But you can't really explain the actions of some dictators without looking at their ideology.
AFAICT, Napoleon just wanted to conquer the world, and was fairly rational about it. Hitler, though, did a lot of things for ideological reasons that made it harder for him to conquer the world.
Over time, I think the trend is that ideology wanes as the bureaucrats take over - I think Brezhnev was less ideological than Lenin, and Xi less so than Mao.
I dunno if the 'practical' totalitarians (Saddam, Pinochet, Putin) are better or worse overall than the ideologues (Pol Pot, Hitler). On one hand, the 'practical' ones are less likely to engage in mass murder for no reason, but on the other hand they are likely to wield power for longer.
Putin is a dirty Commie. Zero tolerance for Commie.
Darling of the right? I don't think so, according to Gallup:
" 88% of both Republicans and Democrats viewing Russia unfavorably, while 82% of independents said the same."
I'll also point out that it was Obama that promised "increased flexibility" to Putin in 2012, then Putin in 2014 invaded Ukraine the first time, to no meaningful US response.
Trump put on sanctions to stop the Nordstream2 pipeline which Biden lifted.
Darling of the right.
Stop making a straw man about what Conservatives believe in and who they support. One can voice respect for an enemy's apparent skills without agreeing with or supporting that enemy.
Some Conservatives marveled at Putin's ability to hoodwink the west. But we are very happy that Putin underestimated Ukrainian resistance and resolve.
It was Obama who turned a blind eye to Putin's first incursion into Ukraine. It was Obama who refused to send military equipment and weapons to Ukrainians before and after 2014. It was Obama who was caught in a hot mic in 2012 asking Russian President Medvedev for more flexibility on missile defense issues until after the elections.
"One can voice respect for an enemy's apparent skills without agreeing with or supporting that enemy."
The left doesn't believe that. You can see that with their reaction to Trump. He literally wins the Presidency, and they insist that he's an idiot who is incapable of planning.
To some extent it's stupid trash talk, but I get the impression they actually believe it.
Check out what Trump and Tucker are saying these days, and try again - this time without deflecting to whatever Obama did.
Yeah, why don't you quote some of that supposed Putin love-fest, instead of demanding we read your mind about what you think qualified?
At some point, Brett, your demand for links to stuff everyone knows looks like willful blindness.
They're playing Tucker on Russian State TV, dude.
Trump can't stop praising Putin. Here he is *walking back* calling Putin a genius:
"Here's a guy that says, you know, 'I'm gonna declare a big portion of Ukraine independent.' He used the word 'independent,' and we're gonna go out and we're gonna go in and we're gonna help keep peace. You gotta say that's pretty savvy."
Oh yeah, that's just respect for his tactics! ::eyeroll::
GOP is the party with members voting against providing aid to Ukraine right now.
Voting against military aid may stop a proxy war that serves no purpose in terms of national security, and somehow less in terms of US individual rights. You continue to be a piss-poor advocate for the latter, and don't seem to comprehend that the former is what drives military operations. The 'somebody must do something' emotional/activist model has never provided a long term solution or stability, and never will.
Proxy war between whom?
The Chinese Communist Party is awful. But look at Putin now. Russia is no longer a communist country, but it is busy engaging in mass murder in Ukraine.
One thing about Communism is that it is unpopular. For this reason, the pattern is that Communist Parties always have force themselves on people, rely on extreme censorship and suppression of dissent, one-party rule, and a dictatorship.
It is the establishment of these brutal governments that has caused the severe human rights abuses under these regimes. If communism had been established in a democratic manner and people retained the power to change their mind if it didn’t work (and it wouldn’t work), by contrast, such human rights abuses wouldn’t have occurred because the government wouldn’t have the power to act that way. And people would reject communism at the polls.
What we really need is a victim of dictators day.
Putin is a dirty Commie, friend of dirty Commies, supporter of dirty Commies.
"What we really need is a victim of dictators day"
+1. It matters little to me whether I am killed by Tojo, Stalin, or Hitler, Pinochet or Sadaam, etc.
Agree.
That's true, but it matters to the next guy whether or not we remind people that the excuses for dictatorship are just that, not high minded ideals; If fewer people bought the excuses, fewer dictators would end up in a position to kill victims.
How many days would that be, then Brett, to get at all the go-to excuses dictators use?
Do we get a 'victims of anti-communism day?' That's a favorite!
Let's show a sense of proportion; We get a victims of communism day, and a victims of anti-communism minute.
Oh, Brett...Pinochet was nothing, eh?
Check out the interwar period in Eastern Europe (Hungary, Romania, ...) And a bunch of Nazi killings. And Latin America all up and down, well beyond Pinochet, often due to our own CIA.
Nothing by the standards of global communism, anyway. I did give you a minute, after all.
And you think the Nazis were anti-communist? Not just competitors in the same business?
I'm not playing the game of 'your mass killing is bigger than my mass killing.'
There's plenty of reigns of terror, loss of freedom, and governmental mass killings in the name of anti-Communism, Brett. You give up the moral high ground by poo-pooing that in favor of your chosen ideological enemy.
You go there, the Commies come in and talk about all the people who starved needlessly under capitalism, and then it just gets down to a lame-ass ideological war.
"+1. It matters little to me whether I am killed by Tojo, Stalin, or Hitler, Pinochet or Sadaam, etc."
OK, but who will break the news to the descendants of Holocaust victims, and others who have the impression that the Holocaust was a distinctive form of horror, that the Holocaust is actually going to be folded up into other crimes and not given special commemoration?
Eventually, it will become so general as to turn into a "some people did some things" day.
Seriously, there's enough atrocities to justify a museum or two for each one. Maybe people will get "atrocity fatigue," but at least commemorate the big atrocities - the Holocaust and the Communist murders.
However, I don't want to steal May 1. For one, why should the Conspirators be denied their Law Day (as recognized, you guessed it by law)?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/36/113
If you're pagan, you can have traditional maypole dancing and other celebrations on May 1. Put anything work-related far from your thoughts!
If you want to honor workers, then observe today's Feast of St. Joseph the Worker.
Communism (with a capital 'C') is always a dictatorship.
Note also: a Communist system cannot tolerate other ideologies existing within it. A liberal (in the classical sense) system can tolerate small 'c' communism operating within it. (ie, if you want to go live on a commune in a liberal system, you can do that).
Every day should be Victims of Communism (or dictators) day since the numbers increase daily and should be spent opposing these regimes.
People who want money earned by others might feel bad if communists (who wanted money earned by others) are condemned.
Greedy officious bullies don’t want to be lumped together with greedy officious bullies who were actually able to fully implement their policies.
Do you wonder why modern America has rejected the ideas of racist Republicans, misogynistic right-wingers, superstitious gay-bashers, conservative xenophobes, and other disaffected clingers in the culture war?
Do you understand why much of conservative academia is focused on carving out special privileges preserving a right of our vestigial right-wing bigots to continue to engage in stale bigotry?
Does it bother you that America's strongest educational and cultural institutions are operated in, by, and for the liberal-libertarian American mainstream while guys like you settle for fourth-tier (or worse) conservative-controlled campuses?
Nipping at the ankles of better Americans seems to be about all guys like you (and the Volokh Conspirators) have left in modern, improving America. So carry on, clingers . . . so far as your betters permit.
Who is your dealer. That is some power shit your smoking.
Who were your English teachers?
Wherever they are, they weep.
What a dipwad you are.
If I must operate without the approval of semiliterate conservative bigots . . . I shall survive.
Rev, you are still mouthing and making a fool of yourself. You need to get back to the priority of being replaced by a diverse. Until you do, you need to STFU. Payback starts after the 2022 election.
"People who want money earned by others" and who return nothing of value, save not hurting the productive person physically.
Those are the rent seekers and the dirty Commies.
You'd think if Professor Somin was really interested in the victims of communism he'd see them as something more than an excuse for yearly trolling.
Can you point out what you consider "trolling" in his post?
His consistent argument for May 1 based on stuff no one outside of academia (or motivated trolls) will care about.
So, a straightforward proposal to remember 80-100 million people who were killed or starved, merely by naming a day, and made without any partisan accusations or rancor. And certainly without any trolling.
Yet several people here manage to be against it.
Have you checked your partisanometer lately?
Really, Rev, recognizing victims of communism is a partisan issue? Can you be explicit about which party is against and which is in favor?
As in Duck Soup: "Whatever It Is, I'm Against It".
Appeal to 'this is clearly right' is not a great counterargument.
If you think the objections on here don't hold water, address them. Just stamping your foot and declaring you can't believe those objections exist just makes you look like an ideologue.
I think Communism has gotten a bad rap, it's incredible success as an aspirational world religion has been overshadowed by it's abysmal failure as a political and economic system.
I like the idea of Victims of Communism Day, but the victims should include those who were victimized by red-scares. Senator Josef McCarthy's victims.
What was the body count?
What, you mean like Alger Hiss, who was guilty as hell? Or did you have some 'victim' who wasn't actually a communist in mind?
Well, John Henry Faulk was certainly a victim. Not of McCarthy specifically, but of the witch hunt mood.
Again, the defining characteristic of a "witch hunt" is that it can ONLY produce innocent victims, because there aren't any witches. If only that were true of communists...
1)You asked for an innocent victim, yes? Was Faulk not one?
2)I understand that is your idiosyncratic definition, but it's not the common one. For example, the wiki article says:
"In current language, "witch-hunt" metaphorically means an investigation that is usually conducted with much publicity, supposedly to uncover subversive activity, disloyalty, and so on, but with the real purpose of intimidating political opponents. It can also involve elements of moral panic or mass hysteria."
which rather describes what happened to Mr. Faulk.
Faulk at least had access to the American legal system. Wikipedia summarizes the ambiguous results:
"Several prominent radio personalities along with CBS News vice president Edward R. Murrow supported Faulk's attempt to put an end to blacklisting. With financial backing from Murrow, Faulk engaged New York attorney Louis Nizer. Attorneys for AWARE [the group which called Faulk a communist], including McCarthy-committee counsel Roy Cohn, managed to stall the suit, originally filed in 1957, for five years. When the trial finally concluded in a New York courtroom, the jury had determined that Faulk should receive more compensation than he sought in his original petition. On June 28, 1962, the jury awarded him the largest libel judgment in history to that date — $3.5 million. An appeals court lowered the amount to $500,000. Legal fees and accumulated debts erased most of the balance of the award. He netted some $75,000."
This sounds like a lot of expense to establish one's innocence, though it was technically a victory.
"This sounds like a lot of expense to establish one's innocence, though it was technically a victory."
So there was a grocer in Syracuse, NY, named Hartnett, who ran a for profit service where he got media companies to pay him a per name fee to check whether actors, screen writers, and so on were pinkos. It was lucrative - you had to pay him again every time you hired someone for a gig. Mr. Hartness, unfortunately, wasn't very careful in his vetting and was fingering innocent people. Faulk objected, and for his troubles Hartnett labeled him a communist, which derailed Faulk's career (and Faulk wasn't even a little bit pink).
As one example of the kind of trash Harnett purveyed, one of the things that he said was that Faulk had attended parties with known communists. At trial, Hartnett's defense was that it was true - and it was! Specifically, Faulk had attended some kind of gala - the Nth anniversary of the founding of the U.N. or some such - and various diplomats from communist countries had attended, along with diplomats from every other country, IIRC the US Secretary of State and so on.
It wasn't a technical victory - the trial was about stopping Hartnett's scam, and it did so.
Louis Nizer's autobio has a chapter about the case (he was Faulk's lawyer). It is a very gripping, very sordid, very cautionary tale. There are a lot of parallels to cancel culture today.
I know who Nizer is (thanks to Nizer, that self-effacing guy).
Faulk came out $75K ahead after his expenses were covered, according to Wikipedia.
Still, if someone has to spend all that time, energy and money to eke out a technical legal victory, maybe we could coin the term "Faulked" to describe their situation.
Since it is Victims of Communism Day I'll recount a brief history of my Mother in law's brush with Communism:
In 1975 when she was 13, the Khmer Rouge completed their takeover of Cambodia, she never saw her father again he was taken away and immediately executed. The rest of her family were all sent to communes, her mother to one, she and 3 younger siblings to another. They were marched over 100 miles on foot to their commune. They survived their on thin rice gruel for almost 4 years. She said if they came across a lizard, frog, grasshopper out in the fields then they would eat it immediately. If you brought it back and tried to cook it, then someone would smell it cooking and report you. Then they'd take them away and kill them.
After 4 years and the Vietnamese invaded, and chased the Khmer Rouge into the jungle, she came back to Phnom Penh and reunited with her mother. Her family picked out a house to live in, since half to 2/3 the population of Phnom Penh had been killed, including almost everyone who could own a house, they were just there for the taking. The Khmer Rouge had also destroyed all civil records while they were in power, property records, birth, marriage, etc so there was no record of former owners or possible heirs.
That's not ancient history, my mother in law still lives in Phnom Penh and she is only 60.
“Communism, that’s like when the government subsidizes private health insurance companies, right? Man, I sure do hate communism.”
- Average Volokh commenter
Feh. No, Communism is where government takes over private health care, and if the government doesn't like you, you can't get health care, but you can get subsidized suicide. Maybe whether you want it or not.
So given that your best swing was an opinion piece making a slippery slope argument about Canada, I guess America is nowhere near communism.
I don't through out the words "communist," "socialist," or "fascist" at people. For one thing, those words mean more than most people realize. For instance, there are as many definitions for the word "socialist" as there are socialists.
But on this theme, I've been slowly reading my way through THE GULAG ARCHIPELAGO. The book is written a darkly ironic tone that is fits in with the movie THE DEATH OF STALIN (which everyone here should watch).
Even considering the laughably inflated figure of 100 million (which actually includes Nazis killed in WWII - Hitler would be deemed a “Victim of Communism”), it is still dwarfed by the number of people killed by capitalist imperialism. The US state alone genocided tens of millions of natives, and the Europeans did even worse in Africa and Asia in pursuit of colonial control and profits. When is their victims’ day of remembrance?
In the spirit of Somin’s May Day troll job, I would propose July 4th.
Dishonest as usual.
No, the 100 million does not include "Nazis", and almost all of those megadeaths are inflicted upon the Communist nation's own populace.
On the other hand, I'd love to see where you can show that "capitalist imperialism" deliberately killed many times that 100,000,000 people killed by Communist governments. I mean, when Columbus arrive in North America, there might have been 2 million natives on the continent. 5 million if you include Mexico and take the high estimate. By 1776, when the US state could first be said to exist, there were not even 500,000.
So how did the US state kill tens of millions?
And how do you think the Europeans killed many more than "tens of millions" in their colonialist pursuits? Have any data on those events? I'm sure you do, since you would never make such an extreme claim without a source, right? ...Right?
While you're right that Teefah's numbers are nonsense, i'd like to draw attention to 'capitalist imperialism' as problematic. It's a contradiction in terms (capitalism is about as opposed to imperialism as it is to communism). But beyond that, it's historically inaccurate. The colonial powers were mercantilist, not capitalist, in their colonial adventures. (In fact, capitalism didn't even exist as either a theoretical construct or as a practice at the start of the colonial era).
capitalism is about as opposed to imperialism as it is to communism
This is...quite a take. What do you think colonialism was about, if not capital acquisition? Or America's anti-communist fun times coupapalooza in Latin America?
At that level of abstraction, communism is as capitalistic as any other system; "Capitalism", at the highest level of abstraction, is just spending some of the surplus created by production on increasing the capacity for production. You know, investing it in "capital", instead of consuming it?
"Capitalism" on an ideological level is quite distinct from mercantilism.
If you look at the relevant wiki definitions:
"Mercantilism is an economic policy that is designed to maximize the exports and minimize the imports for an economy. It promotes imperialism, colonialism, tariffs and subsidies on traded goods to achieve that goal."
"Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit. Central characteristics of capitalism include capital accumulation, competitive markets, price system, private property, property rights recognition, voluntary exchange, and wage labor."
By that definition, the conquistadors weren't really capitalists - they were generally, I think, sent by their governments, not private companies, they sure as heck weren't interested in competitive markets, property rights, or voluntary exchange.
There is a lot of overlap. Democracies, monarchies, and autocracies all did bad things as colonial powers. Was the East Indies company taking over India capitalism, imperialism, colonialism, or some of each?
The USSR and China are imperial powers by wiki's definition:
"Imperialism is the state policy, practice, or advocacy of extending power and dominion, especially by direct territorial acquisition or by gaining political and economic control of other areas" as were the Tsars, and most European kings.
A lot of people seem to define capitalism as 'everything bad that isn't communism', and define communism as 'everything bad that isn't completely laissez faire capitalism'. Squirreloid just seems to be parsing things finer than that.
By that definition, the conquistadors were *entrepreneurs* seeking private wealth through innovative means.
Was the East Indies company taking over India capitalism, imperialism, colonialism
All 3. But I notice you didn't say mercantalism. Which is quite correct, as it was about private wealth.
I'm not saying imperialism is *only* capitalist, but capitalism as not being imperialist is some kind of dumb monopoly on virtue thing.
There's lots of ways to be unvirtuous. Just because some ideologies are incompatible with imperialism doesn't, by itself, make them virtuous.
Capitalism eschews the initiation of force entirely. Voluntary trade is the core of capitalism. Imperialism is entirely about the initiation of force. They're mutually exclusive. (Which hasn't stopped nations from being partially capitalist and partially imperialist. Nations do contradictory things all the time, because nations are fictions composed of individuals who believe different things).
"Voluntary trade is the core of capitalism"
No, voluntary exchange has existed for millennia prior to capitalism, and has existed as a part of every sort of economic system, from the most hierarchical to the most egalitarian. The core of capitalism is the idea that the holders of capital get to make the decisions concerning how the economy is structured, and get to decide how profits are distributed. The idea that that this "eschews the initiation of force" is absurd. What, pray tell, protects the profits of the capitalists (from their workers and others) but for the force of the state? What ensures that economic surplus flows to capital owners other than the laws of property, contracts, etc., enforced ultimately at the barrel of a gun?
Capitalism is an economic system, not a political one.
That means that no, the core of capitalism isn't determining the structure of the economy any more than socialism's core is.
Communism - note the big C - is both a political and economic system, though, so it does require controlling the structure of the government.
While I'm not surprised you don't know the difference, please try to learn a little something about what you are writing about before posting.
Capitalism (like socialism) is both a political AND economic system. Some might say it's an example of a "political economy." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_economy
Maybe before being a know-it-all prick, you should make sure you actually know something instead of just pulling shit out of your ass.
What right is there of workers to control the means of production? That's not a right.
The property right is the right to pursue, own, use, and dispose of property. It is not the right to simply have property - there is no right to just have property, you have to earn it.
Under a capitalist system, workers can own the means of production - if they earn it. Employee-owned companies are a real thing. (They exist in the US right now, with no legislation mandating they exist or even, as far as I know, encouraging them to exist). But those workers control those means of production, not because it was handed to them, but because they earned it. (And many publicly traded companies are partially employee owned - those employees who own shares can vote in shareholder meetings and contribute to decisions on the governance of the company).
To the degree that workers can control the means of production because they own the means of production, they have a property right that a legitimate government should defend with retaliatory force should someone try to take it. To the extent they don't own it, they have no right to control it.
You can't just assert an arbitrary thing as a right. Rights express negative obligations to refrain from interfering with someone else's interests (life, liberty, or property), not positive claims.
The above was meant as a reply to your below post.
As to this one... as long as we're citing wikipedia, here's their capitalism page intro sentence: "Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit." Not a political economy, an economic system. Your own source doesn't agree with you.
AT, you're wrong AGAIN, which is looking to be your default state.
What you linked to is a description of the field of Political Economy, not the field of economics nor capitalism. What is political economy? Well, let's see, directly from your link:
WOW! The study of GOVERNMENT regulation of economic activities is POLITICAL.
But you know what "political economy" isn't? Capitalism.
The fact that you had to link to an entirely different research discipline in an attempt to redefine capitalism should have been the first hint you were wrong. If only you were capable of taking hints.
The idea of a right to property has not existed for millenia, which is a prerequisite for truly voluntary exchange. Nor have free markets. And it's only really a system if it is widespread and not interfered with by the state. A black market could operate in a capitalist fashion, but it wouldn't be accurate to call that system of economics Capitalism, since a black market is illegal by definition and subject to repression by the state.
And you seem to be missing the part about the 'initiation' of force. A state that protects property rights is not initiating force. Those who violate property rights initiate force. State action to punish them is retaliatory force. (Said rights can also be protected by private action: the historical american west had little in the way of law enforcement, but groups of people entered into contracts with each other to effectively police the group. Several researchers have looked into this, including ... I want to say Anderson and Hill).
But regardless, capitalism depends on the protection of property rights, but capitalism is not, itself, a political ideology. It's an economic ideology. Classical liberalism (especially Lockean natural rights) is the political theory which makes Capitalism possible.
"A state that protects property rights is not initiating force. Those who violate property rights initiate force. State action to punish them is retaliatory force."
How about a state that protects the rights of workers to control the means of production? Is state action to punish violators of that right acceptable retaliatory force? If not, then your distinction of "initiating force" is nothing more than ideological sophistry.
Colonialism was about mercantilism. The colonial powers believed the economic pie was finite, and by controlling more of the world they controlled more of the pie. 'Capital acquisition' does not capitalism make.
Capitalism doesn't even exist until ~18th century, long after the start of colonialism.
America's anti-communist actions in latin america had nothing to do with capitalism. Capitalism requires government abstention from actions in the economy - when we talk about government action, we're generally not talking about capitalism.
"when we talk about government action, we're generally not talking about capitalism."
This is either ideological hokum, or it is completely incoherent. Has there ever been an instance of capitalism existing when it wasn't the policy of the state? Perhaps you could provide an example.
Which part of 'private ownership of the means of production' or 'free markets' involves government action?
Literally every single part of it. As suggested above, capitalism has never been implemented without significant government action, and is always ALWAYS backstopped by force or the threat of force. If anything, historically speaking, the more capitalistic a country is, the more force it uses (see e.g. US and British empires).
Nonsense, the 'wild' west (which wasn't so wild as media would have you believe) was capitalist and basically stateless. (The US nominally controlled it, but enforcement was nearly non-existent). This is well documented in the work of several researchers.
Further, just because government might protect capitalism doesn't make that government action itself capitalism. Capitalism is the economic system. The political system that supports capitalism is classical (or philosophical) liberalism. Free markets, by definition, involve no government involvement in the market. There's no government action there. Private ownership is private. There's no government action there. You would erase the public-private distinction entirely. My going to the grocery store would be 'government action', because the government nominally protects me in my person and the money i will use at the grocery store from bad actors, and protects the grocery store and its goods and money from bad actors. That's nonsense, start to finish.
I disbelieve your assertion that capitalist countries use more force. If anything, the US disproves it - as it got less capitalist at points during the 20th century, it used more force. I'd be thrilled if you had a cite to academic research which even pretends to speak to that supposed relationship, but my guess is you just made that up. (See also Acemoglu and Robinson's work, including their book Why Nations Fail, on how classically liberal political institutions and the capitalist economy they enable are better for human flourishing).
The corporate form is capitalism. So are chartered companies like the East India Company.
You are mixing up libertarian with capitalist. They are different words for a reason.
I cannot think of a single reasonable source that agrees with your definition of capitalism.
Capitalism is a classically liberal economic ideology (and upon which modern libertarianism is heavily based). Capitalism is defined by private ownership of the means of production, and a free market where prices are set by supply and demand. The corporate form is obviously permissible under capitalism, but the mere existence of corporations does not make something capitalism, nor would the lack of corporations stop something from being capitalist. (The fact that the East India Company was a company does not make Britain's economic system at the time 'capitalism'.)
Capitalism requires the recognition and protection of natural rights (sensu Locke). Most importantly, property rights are a prerequisite, because without them Capitalism isn't possible. Classical liberalism (and approximately modern libertarianism) is the political theory under which capitalism is possible. Disentangling capitalism from (classical or philosophical) liberalism is nigh impossible in practice.
Now, which part of colonialism involves a free market, or recognition of property rights of all parties? None. Conquest is incompatible with capitalism.
People with privately owned means of production got pretty into conquering other lands and peoples and holding them as property under the protection of their government.
Capitalism is possible under theories other than liberalism. Ask Pinochet.
Conquering other lands immediately takes you outside capitalism. Everybody has property rights. The only means of exchange in capitalism is the free market. You can't just take something by force and call that capitalism. You have to buy it in the market or its not capitalism.
Someday we will have a Victims of Open Borders day.
How about instead of the stupid made up holiday of Juneteenth? Let's do it then. Just change the name. Federal government already has off.
No bigots around here . . .
The Volokh Conspiracy: Official Legal Blog Of White Nationalism.
It seems dishonest to say "sure, if you don't like May 1 we can use November 7" and post it *on May 1*.
His argument is that May 1st is the better choice, but November 7th is an acceptable alternative.
It seems dishonest to blithely ignore him saying:
It would save a lot of time and effort if we simply incorporated by reference everything we said every other year, and advance the ball just about as much.
I hereby incorporate by reference everything I've previously said on the subject.