The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
November 7 as Victims of Communism Day - 2023
I have long advocated using May 1 for this purpose. But 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. 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.
The November 7 option is not without its own downsides. From an American standpoint, one obvious one is that it will sometimes fall close to election day. On such occasions, a November 7 Victims of Communism Day might not attract as much attention as it deserves, because many will - understandably - be focused on electoral politics instead. Nonetheless, November 7 remains the best available alternative to May 1; or at least the best I have seen so far.
For that reason, I am - once again - 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 now, I reserve the options of returning to an exclusive focus on May 1, doing annual posts on both days, or switching to some third option should a good one arise.
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. Putin's brutal war on Ukraine is primarily based on Russian nationalist ideology, rather than that of the Soviet Union. Nonetheless, the failure of post-Soviet Russia to fully reckon with its oppressive Soviet past is likely one of the reasons why Putin's regime came to power, and engaged in its own atrocities.
In China, the Communist Party remains in power (albeit after having abandoned many of its previous socialist economic policies), and has become less and less tolerant of criticism of the mass murders of the Mao era (part of a more general turn towards greater repression). The government's brutal repression of the Uighur minority, and escalating suppression of dissent, even among Han Chinese, are just two aspects in which it seems bent on repeating some of its previous atrocities. Under the rule of Xi Jinping, the government has also increasingly reinstated socialist state control of the economy.
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 2021 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
Good luck. I don't think that it is going to happen. The Democratic Party has been taken over by Socialists who are hell bent in invoking their version of Communism on the US. I don't think after all of the work that they have done in erasing the true history of their party, that they would like an annual reminder.
John-Birch Society style claims that floridation of the water and social welfare programs like social security are indistinguishable from rigged elections, lying propaganda, concentration camps, and mass executions has taken something of a hit now that the Republican Party has openly embraced Stalinism, with Trump a big admirer of communist dictators like Stalin and Kim-Jong Un and eager to introduce their style of government into the United States, starting but by no means ending with lying propaganda and rigged elections.
Trump openly admires and embraces Communist dictators, openly embraces Communism, and you think you can bullshit that Communism is anything other than Trumpism by another name?
You don’t like Communism? Then you don’t like Trump. Say so. Say something about Trump’s National Socialist agenda, say something about his open admiration for Stalin and Kim Jong Un, say something about his open desire to introduce Communist-style dictatorship into the United States with himself as dictator.
Stop bullshitting that the Democratic Party has anything to do with it.
Licking the nuts of a dictator, ready to stand back while he rolls tanks through Europe is a bit odd.
That's because Trump recognizes a fellow traveler when he sees one. He, too, would like to govern that way and fortunately, our system had enough checks in place to keep him from doing it.
Projection, Krychek. This is how Dems would like to rule, so they assume others want to do the same. We don't. And neither does Trump.
When did Dems weigh sending the military to seize ballot boxes, or send a mob to the Capitol to try to prevent the votes from being counted? When did Dems try to persuade state officials to change vote totals, or send alternate slates of phony electors? When did Dems ask state legislators to simply ignore election results and appoint the electors?
Well, give them some time.
Power still corrupts...
You know, despite being a Democrat, I would no more trust the Democrats with absolute power than I would the Republicans. I think checks and balances are a good thing.
That said, though, Trump's attempts to use presidential power to subvert small-d democratic institutions and elections is wholly unprecedented. His harassment of state election workers who were only doing their job, his attempts to destroy public confidence in the process, and yes, the January 6 riot, none of that has ever happened before. And for Republicans to then claim that the Democrats are the ones who are subverting democracy takes a special kind of chutzpah.
Not all Republicans. Mostly just the disaffected, authoritarian losers who support Trump and the bigoted, half-educated conservatives attracted to this faux libertarian blog.
Oh, I agree. Which is why I'm not going to give Democrats a pass, simply because the right opportunity hasn't (yet) arisen.
Democrats also have history of trying to interfere in other Constitutionally protected rights, and many vow to continue to do so even today.
When they tell you who they are, believe them.
The tiny, left-wing fringe isn't the same issue as the right-wing majority that has embraced conspiracy theory and authoritarianism of the Hungary/Viktor Orban variety.
This is weak even for a "both sides" argument.
"and yes, the January 6 riot, none of that has ever happened before."
You have to pretty narrowly define "that" to claim it never happened before. We've had plenty of legislative chamber invasions, for instance. And the creation of 'autonomous zones" in cities absolutely qualifies as insurrection or rebellion. As does violent attacks on occupied government buildings.
January 6th was mostly shocking for the realization that right-wingers could riot, too.
Trump openly embraces Communism? I'm all for a good and hard "bothsidesing," but I think you're going a little overboard here. Either that or I missed some stuff.
Trump has ardently embraced Putin and fellow grandiosity enthusiast Kim Jong Un (can you imagine the scorecards those two would turn in after a match?), as well as plenty of other authoritarian assholes (Erdogan, Bolsonaro, Netanyahu, Duterte, Hamas, Orban . . .).
So? That has nothing to do with ideology, it's just foreign policy realpolitik/negotiating.
If Russians or North Koreans or Turks or whoever, want to have communism or whatever in their homelands, that's their business, not mine.
Yeah right. And when Hitler was badmouthing the Jews, he was just doing “realpolitik” nobody should take seriously.
Trump has expressed abject admiration for Kim-Jong Un’s ability to scare people shitless, and he’s expressed it both in public as well as in private. He’s made it clear he wishes people in the United States were as terrified of him, were as self-abasingly obsequious of him. as North Koreans are scared shitless by Kim Jong Un. That’s what treating a leader with “respect” means to him.
That’s not “foreign policy.” That’s not “realpolitik.” It’s what Trump really wants.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UWvmBGZzd8c
Lol. Your link made me laugh. Bits from a Trump interview on Fox some months ago apparently. It's funny, I don't know why.
No - I don't think effusively praising Kim and Xi as "very smart" is embracing the ideology of Communism.
What it is, whether it makes any sense as some kind of strategy, or pure dumbassery, I express no opinion.
Sure it seems funny -- to on-the-spectrum, alienated, awkward, culture war casualties with a fondness for right-wing authoritarianism and flashing middle fingers at the modern American mainstream.
If you want to talk bullshit, I suggest that you look in the mirror.
Funny, I pick the candidates I vote for using a simple calculus: whoever is most likely to leave me and mine alone will get my vote.
And clearly Trump and the GOP are in the lead using that metric, which is hardly the Hallmark of Communists.
To be sure Trump supports crony capitalism, he's always shown an appreciation for public funds spent to enhance his investments, but he is a firm believer inostly free enterprise and private property.
All we get from Democrats these days is 'you didn't build that's, 'you can't drive that', 'you can't cook with that'. While doing their best to make sure nobody can afford anything.
I take it you’re rich, white, and a citizen? After all, if you were a nationalist Aryan, you didn’t have anything to fear from Hitler either.
I bet if you were a woman who wanted an abortion, or an immigrant, or transgendered, you'd have a far different perspective on which party is leaving you alone.
[citation needed]
Martin Niemöller was thinking of you.
Are the Democrats attempting to seize the means of production? Centralise the economy? More regulation doesn't mean "socialism".
You're falling into the McCarthy-like trap of so overstating your case that genuine concerns or dangers get ignored.
Like all fascists, the democrats don't want to seize the means of production, just control it.
I give you the energy sector, the medical sector, the finance sector, most of the communication sector.
And yes, the democrat platform shows a desire to centralize the (rest of) the economy.
More regulation doesn't mean socialism, it means fascism.
(and, oh by the way, McCarthy did in fact find communists running parts of the federal government)
Oh, so the Democrats are fascists, now. Of course, you don't see any latent fascism in the GOP.
FWIW I recall Obama's often being accused of being a socialist or communist, and his treatment of Citi proved that he wasn't.
McCarthy may have found some small fish but as a result of his right-wing and un-American bullshit, real communists were able to get away with actual infiltration while real Americans had their careers destroyed.
Both parties have adopted a certain degree of fascism, as they've become more comfortable with government control over the economy.
But, yes, the Democrats have become quite fond of classic fascist measures, where you let some industry nominally remain in private hands, but so tie it up with regulation that it becomes a de facto extension of the government. Isn't that basically what you guys did with health insurance? Dictate the price, features, who it had to be offered to, and even tried to dictate that people who didn't want it buy it?
While some of you wanted to take that last step to "single payer", where the government just took over the market entirely.
Your definition of fascism is 'regulates industry too much.'
No one but you has that definition.
I myself avoid the term because it's too fraught with polemic emptiness.
That is wise, because it is fraught with polemic emptiness. That said, Brett is using the term in it's correct definition, which is government control of the means of production without actually running the company directly.
By that idiotic definition, all of Europe is fascist.
Yeah, so? They are.
Authoritarian fascism, though not as economically productive as free market capitalism, is at least not as radically destructive as communism, and allows politicians to get their control freak fix and extract rent from the productive economy. So in the end it triumphed.
Good luck with your very special definition.
Modern historians expended a lot of effort attempting to adduce the principles of fascism, and then they gave up. Among the various agreed-upon manifestations of fascism, nobody could find any common thread except utterly unconstrained political opportunism. That seems to be what the term actually refers to, however loosely or carelessly it has been applied.
As someone who's been in the health insurance business for 35 years, I can tell you that Yes, that's exactly what the government did.
You want fascism, Brett?
Here you go.
Donald Trump and his allies have begun mapping out specific plans for using the federal government to punish critics and opponents should he win a second term, with the former president naming individuals he wants to investigate or prosecute and his associates drafting plans to potentially invoke the Insurrection Act on his first day in office to allow him to deploy the military against civil demonstrations.
In private, Trump has told advisers and friends in recent months that he wants the Justice Department to investigate onetime officials and allies who have become critical of his time in office, including his former chief of staff, John F. Kelly, and former attorney general William P. Barr, as well as his ex-attorney Ty Cobb and former Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Gen. Mark A. Milley, according to people who have talked to him, who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe private conversations. Trump has also talked of prosecuting officials at the FBI and Justice Department, a person familiar with the matter said.
Forget single-payer insurance. There's your fucking fascism.
"Classic fascist measure."
What a joke you are. Do you understand any of the issues surrounding insurance, especially health insurance?
Short answer: No. You don't, even though you think you do.
Of course, you don’t see any latent fascism in the GOP.
You're using "Fascism" as a pejorative. If you take the meaning of Fascism as it's meant, then no, there is no fascism in the GOP (or very little), and yes, there is on the Dem side.
You are using fascism as a pejorative and nothing else in this post.
I lived in a socialist country (Portugal) for 10 years. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. It's more about the community looking out for each other, and it's quite pleasant actually
Are you aware of the cost of that "quite pleasant, really", though?
In 2021, the household disposable income was $28,200. On a ppp basis, of course.
In dystopian USA, it's $62,300.
The median adult income in Portugal? $19,500
In dystopian USA, $46,600.
That "quite pleasant, really" comes at the cost of the vast majority being much poorer. Enormously poorer. Because your government is terribly discouraging wealth creation.
Quite pleasant, really, but in the US you'd be considered to be in dire poverty.
I don't know much about life in Portugal, but your choice of metrics here is quite telling and really misses out on a lot that can make life pleasant.
Yes they are attempting to "seize the means of production". Just look at the politics of the Union Leadership and their support of the Democratic Party. Funny thing was that looking back McCarthy was right.
It's not who might support the Democrats for whatever reason, it's what the Democrats do in power. Has Biden taken steps to centralise? Has the Senate passed bills to move from a market to a distributive economy? Nope.
McCarthy was right that there were communists, and utterly wrong and un-American in how he went about exposing them - if he had been a Soviet plant he couldn't have done a better job of discrediting investigations into actual communists.
Half-educated, blustering, right-wing bigots are among my favorite culture war casualties -- and the target audience of a white, male, disaffected, bigot-hugging blog popular among Joe McCarthy fans!
I see. I suppose you could call call opponents of slavery communists because, after all, they really do favor “seizing the means of production” from their current owners. But I don’t think most people would see that as such a bad thing.
Same here. People attempting to negotiate the price of their own labor is “seizing the means of production” only if you think only employers, and not workers, own their labor.
ReaderY, surprisingly, you can find historical examples of ante-bellum pro-slavery advocates using, "communist," as a pejorative against abolitionists. Remember, the publication year of Marx's Communist Manifesto was 1848.
Are the Democrats attempting to seize the means of production?
Yes. Businesses are being nickel-and-dimed with regulation after regulation. Eventually they'll have 100% control over businesses, even if indirectly.
Centralise the economy?
Yes. For the same reasons as above.
More regulation doesn’t mean “socialism”.
Wrong. It most certainly does mean socialism, or at least working toward it.
Tony Soprano couldn’t agree with you more. These rediculous government regulations against ordinary business activities everybody does to get ahead like murder, extortion, bribery, and theft are nothing more than an attempt to seize the means of production from hardworking mobsters like himself.
Sure, let's pretend that telling businessmen they can't sell a product people want to buy is the same as telling mobsters they can't commit extortion. Why not? It's not like words mean anything...
As you've decided that by definition the Democrats are socialist it follows that everything they do is socialist regardless of accuracy or true definition.
Redbaiting bullshit like this post are a great way to assure this will never happen.
Want to freeze a good idea out of any progress towards implementation? Partisanize it.
Worse than partisanizing something is associated the cause with the losing side of the culture war and the wrong side of history. Just ask gun nuts, religious kooks, anti-abortion absolutists, or Israel's right-wingers . . . but ask soon, because none of them seem likely to available for comment over the long term.
Pointing out that communism is still evil is not redbaiting, but I am sure the dictatorship of the proletariat will recognize your service to the cause, comrade.
'The Democratic Party has been taken over by Socialists'
That is not saying communism is bad, it is redbaiting.
"Largely unreformed communist regimes remain in power in Cuba and North Korea."
Can North Korea really be considered a communist country?
It's really just a dynastic dictatorship.
Communist regimes are kind of like perpetual motion machines: They're impossible, so no 'communist regime' is actually communist.
Since the real thing simply can't exist, the term "communist regime" is normally used to refer to the sort of government that claims to be communist. North Korea qualifies in that regard.
So is self-identifying as a communist kind of like self-identifying as a woman? It doesn't matter whether you objectively fit the category so long as that's what you call yourself?
I mean, I think that works up to a point. In one sense, self-identification is what makes someone a Christian rather than a Muslim. On the other hand, words have meaning, and I think there are limits on how far afield from objective meaning one can go. Can you be a communist if you think factory owners should make more than factory workers? Can you be a capitalist if you believe that there should be no private enterprise? Probably not.
So I'm not sure that there is any such thing as a communist country at this point, if there ever was. Does anyone seriously think the President of Venezuela lives in the same squalor as the peasantry?
My point is simply that, when people persist in using an identifier for something that literally cannot exist, the identifier takes on a new meaning, "the sort of people who claim to be this".
Just like perpetual motion machines can't actually exist, but we use the term anyway, to refer to purported perpetual motion machines.
"Does anyone seriously think the President of Venezuela lives in the same squalor as the peasantry?"
So, as communist countries simply can't exist in the real world, and the term is accordingly used to refer to countries that purport to be communist, it's not inappropriate at this point to observe that the leadership of purportedly communist countries basically always live high off the hog.
So he's totally in genre.
Yeah, no.
Communism is a real thing, and real countries were communist.
No, it can't last. But that doesn't mean the meaning becomes whoever calls themselves communist is communist!
At this point you're delving into the realms of fantasy. Even the dictatorship 'of the proletariat' isn't actually of the proletariat, it's just a dictatorship, straight up. And they never get past that stage.
True Capitalism has also never been tried. That doesn't mean no one is capitalist, so lets just ignore facts and go with self-identification.
Pure free market capitalism is probably infeasible, too. I must admit it was a depressing day when I finally accepted that reality.
But the issues are different between free market capitalism and communism.
The problem with communism is that it relies on a circumscribed portion of human motivation. It relies, in theory anyway, only on love. And, as David Friedman said, Love is not enough. So, while communism can 'work' for a while for small groups, it doesn't last, and it doesn't scale. It can NEVER scale to the size necessary for a country, which is why I say there are never any communist countries. You only see it in small groups, which have to be embedded in a larger capitalist society, (Because they're NEVER big enough to be self sufficient.) and which generally don't last, the bigger they are the faster they either fall apart or stop being communist.
By contrast, pure free market capitalism works wonderfully, and scales just fine, because it relies on the full range of human motivation. It doesn't pretend that love is enough.
The problem with pure free market capitalism is that it's not stable. It relies on pitting capitalist against capitalist in a Red Queen's race of competition, and capitalists are very clever and good at cooperation; Left to themselves they call off the race! As Adam Smith said, "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices."
You can't leave them to themselves, and expect it to last, you need some mechanism coercively stopping collusion between capitalists. So free market capitalism can never be pure and last.
But that coercive mechanism is very prone to being captured and turned to ends other than enforcing the Red Queen's race. That's the weakness of regulated capitalism: It devolves into crony capitalism or fascism.
Which still has a large enough component of actual capitalism to be worlds better than communism, of course. But pure free market capitalism is an ideal we can work towards but never attain for long, communism is a nightmare hiding behind a pretty mask.
And everyone who cares to knows that latter fact by now.
1. Capitalism is not a state that recognizes all of human nature. The human desire to acquire is not the be-all of our natures.
2. You cannot get away from the implications of your stupid 'Since the real thing simply can’t exist...'
3. Your critique of regulation requires a denial of the existence of internal controls, both of humans and of institutions. That is factually untrue. Humans are not homo economicus. And thank goodness for that.
As Friedman said in that book I linked to, "The attack on private property as selfish contrasts the second method with the first. It implies that the alternative to 'selfish' trade is 'unselfish' love. But, under private property, love already functions where it can. Nobody is prevented from doing something for free if he wants to. Many people—parents helping their children, volunteer workers in hospitals, scoutmasters—do just that. If, for those things that people are not willing to do for free, trade is replaced by anything, it must be by force. Instead of people being selfish and doing things because they want to, they will be unselfish and do them at the point of a gun."
Capitalism, in distinct contrast to communism, does not try to forbid alternate arrangements. There's no, "How dare you give to charity, you fiend! Off to jail with you!".
Communism doesn't just try to encourage the social arrangement it approves of. It affirmatively prohibits it. That is a HUGE difference, and the source of communism's totalitarian nature: It can't tolerate non-communism.
You: By contrast, pure free market capitalism works wonderfully, and scales just fine, because it relies on the full range of human motivation
Your quote: Nobody is prevented from doing something for free if he wants to.
These are different theses. One is about reliance and the other is about what's allowed.
And Friedman's got a thesis as theoretical and wrong as Marx - what's allowed under capitalism in actuality is not much unless you're rich.
Capitalism forbids a lot, unless you are cool with starving.
It's better than communism, but do not mistake that for axiomatically good.
If countries are identified by what they purport to be, then North Korea is a democratic republic.
I think you've missed my point.
It's possible to be a democratic republic, so "democratic republic", sensibly, is used to refer to democratic republics. Even by countries that are lying about being such; They want you to believe they're actual democratic republics.
It's NOT possible to be communist, so "communist" as it is used to refer to countries doesn't really in practice mean communist, it means 'the sort of countries that call themselves "communist".
Which in practice are always totalitarian dictatorships.
So, in practice, "communist" means "totalitarian dictatorship", regardless of the actually impossible form of government it was coined to denote.
Bellmore, you were onto something when you noted that communism has worked well in smaller-scale implementations. Contrary to you, it has also proved it can be long-term stable, as it was among some (not all) western-hemisphere Indian tribes.
Notably, that all came to an end when those tribes encountered what for them amounted to totalitarian capitalism. In the U.S., the historical example of the Coeur d'Alene Indians of northern Idaho is particularly instructive.
It all fell apart for them toward the end of the 19th century, after their essentially communist society's methods transitioned successfully to market-based agricultural competition. Problem was, their communist-style competition was beating the tar out of individualist white settlers. That resulted in political agitation against the Indians.
Washington stepped in and took care of that problem, with anti-communist rhetoric thrown in to make sure no one missed the point. The Couer d'Alenes collectively-farmed holdings were mostly seized to be parceled out to whites, with a small remnant parceled out among tribal members who had to promise to be good individualists.
Because they were not individualists, either by temperament, by experience, or by training, they did far less well than they had done previously while wheat farming collectively. It did not help, of course, that the government had auctioned to white settlers most of the land the tribe had previously had at its disposal.
I think you mistakenly believe a particular style of political indoctrination to be an unalterable aspect of human character.
You could make that argument.
But then you would have to explain why every communist revolutionary movement that survives it's initial stage of mass murder and famine then devolves into a hidebound oligarchic Kleptocracy.
To be sure the more capitalistic it is the more successful and sustainable it is. But that's a function of the efficiency of markets. I've traveled somewhat in China and extensively in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia (while Cambodia isn't technically communist, he was in the Khmer Rouge, and installed by the Vietnamese, and rigidly suppresses any real opposition). The best working parts of those countries are the free market parts, and the security apparatus.
Cuba is a very unfree place, but I dunno if I'd call it a kleptocracy.
Communism to be implemented in any way requires authoritarianism. (Marx thought Communism was the small government solution hehe).
From there, it has a lot of ways it can go, all bad.
Yeah you can tell Cuba is real communism because there isn't much there to steal.
But by some reports Fidel was worth 900m when he died, and Raul is worth 100m.
I don’t know what real communism is beyond like some small religious communities from like a century ago. Tolstoy founded one I think.
If all it takes to be a kleptocracy is the leader dying rich…well, that’s not good news for just about any country,
This has been a long-time failing of Professor Somin. As an intellectual, he thinks that intellectual ideology actually drives the behavior, so that Stalin’s behavior was driven by communist ideology through some sort of dialectical process. Like a bull drawn to a red cape, Professor Somin is drawn to and distracted by intellectual ideas, mistakenly giving them an undue importance in human affairs, rendering him vulnerable to a skillfull matador’s manipulations.
Bullshit. Dictators simply manipulate ideology to suit their ends. As George Orwell pointed out, Stalin-style communism and Hitler-style Naziism claim to be opposites and bitter enemies, but take away the smoke-blowing “isms” and look at the leaders behind the curtain, and there aren’t a lot of differences between the two.
I think it would be fair to say that Stalin was not particularly motivated by communist ideology. Maybe Pol Pot, but not Stalin.
But it's also fair to say that, since communist ideology always leads directly to people like Stalin ending up in power, it's a fair rap anyway.
Lenin sure was.
And the USSR broadly. Which required Stalin to abide by a lot of it's doctrines. Which I'd think you would agree with, since it's a great object lesson in how unfree and unprosperous communism ends up.
In general your attempt here to equate authoritarianism writ large with communism seems pretty odd.
Sure, if you’re running a Ponzi scam, you need to look to the people you’re scamming like you’re engaged in a profit making enterprise. EVERYBODY can’t be in on the scam, after all. But as you move up the food chain, the odds that somebody is in on the scheme rise dramatically.
Now, early in the history of communism, it was still possible for somebody to genuinely think it could work. So, maybe Lenin was a true believer. As time passed and the evidence of horror accumulated, the plausibility of such belief declined, requiring an ever increasing component of willful blindness. A presumption that such belief was just a front became more and more reasonable.
It’s been a very long time since anybody but a fool or a scoundrel would defend communism as a workable system.
“In general your attempt here to equate authoritarianism writ large with communism seems pretty odd.”
I’m not equating authoritarianism with communism; First, because communism is totalitarian, not authoritarian, but chiefly because communism is just a variety of totalitarian theory. There are others, of course.
So, authoritarians are not, typically communists; Communists don’t have enough tolerance for individual liberty to be merely authoritarian. But neither are all totalitarians communists, since there are other approaches to being totalitarian.
The nature of totalitarianism forces all totalitarians to converge on the same general means and behavior, it doesn't force unanimity as to the excuse for ruling...
I would suggest rather than speculative telepathy you read a bit of history - you're really very bad at understanding this thing you inveigh against all the time.
I had to look this up. On me to not know the jargon:
"Both forms of government discourage individual freedom of thought and action. Totalitarianism attempts to do this by asserting total control over the lives of its citizens, whereas authoritarianism prefers the blind submission of its citizens to authority"
I don't think communism is always totalitarianism either. Check Cuba and China.
You're doing a lot of pop sociology and I think it's all bullshit.
You think China isn't totalitarian? Have you read anything about their censorship regime, not only online but also films (Back To The Future was banned because it included time travel) and other mass media (https://www.npr.org/2021/09/02/1033687586/china-ban-effeminate-men-tv-official-morality). The latter batch of rules also banned children from playing computer games on school days. And China routinely makes people disappear for a variety of offenses that have been politicized by the government.
China absolutely is totalitarian. So is Cuba: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/12/cuba-el-nuevo-codigo-penal-presenta-un-panorama-aterrador-para-2023-y-anos-posteriores/ (or see their similar 2021 rules on social media use).
China is working so very hard to try and control every aspect of it's citizen's lives precisely because it is not totalitarian.
Heck, it's not even purely authoritarian these days.
LOL! That's "He was working so hard to pile up a body count precisely because he wasn't a mass murderer!" levels of stupid. Really, it is. That's your argument in a nutshell.
China even has private business these days, Brett.
China is a real problem in the world. I'm interested in dealing with China as it is in reality not as some cartoon to keep my world simple.
Well there is one huge similarity between communism and fascism: the insistence that the party is the state.
That of course leads to party and state control of all the levers of power, whether putatively private or not.
The party is the state is pretty common in a lot of systems - monarchy. Oligarchy. Aristocracy. Even some putative democracies.
This common thread pretty useless pretty fast.
Authoritarian systems have discovered a ton of ways to be bad. I'm no sociologist but I'd say they are different in more ways than they are the same.
Other than being bad.
ReaderY, the abiding principle has been opportunism.
It's communist inasmuch as it's a centralised economy, the government owns the means of production. Marx didn't envisage a dynastic dictatorship, but just as a country can be a republic and a democracy, so can a country can be communist and a de facto monarchy.
Isn't it supposed to be "the people" own the means of production and specifically not the govt?
Supposedly that was an end state after a transitional dictatorship, only in real life the dictatorship is permanent.
Supposedly that was an end state after a transitional dictatorship, only in real life the dictatorship is permanent.
You're mixing up Marxist theory with actual practice.
Marx thought once the bloody revolution bit was over, everyone would be down with socialism so government would act more as analysts.
The dictatorship is more a Stalin thing. Though given that Marx was hilariously wrong about human nature, you will always end up with a dictatorship.
Marx was the theorist, sure, but he was pretty explicit about the dictatorship part, even if he thought it would only be temporary. You can't really say Stalin came up with it on his own.
This is all very silly, since it’s all old and extremely debunked.
But I believe the economic dictatorship Marx talked about is not the same as political dictatorship you’re envisioning.
It’s not like Marx didn’t have a taste for some bloody revolution. Just not oppression.
I know you’re not a podcast guy, but this is the key lecture in the podcast/course that I’m working from:
https://oyc.yale.edu/political-science/plsc-118/lecture-11
"But I believe the economic dictatorship Marx talked about is not the same as political dictatorship you’re envisioning."
Yeah, people on the left would like to think there's some sort of distinction there, wouldn't they? Admitting there wasn't might put all those academic Marxists in a bad light.
I'll see if I can't find time for that podcast. I'll have some idle time tonight while my son is doing his piano lesson.
You once again have jumped from theory to practice.
It may be in practice there cannot be a difference, but Marx was never very good at the implementation part of his theory.
all those academic Marxists that is not the Marxism we are discussing here. Marxist analysis is a useful tool with an unfortunate name. Look up Marxist academics sometime and see the papers they publish. Revolutionary overthrow of the US capitalist system is quite far from their jam.
"Supposedly that was an end state after a transitional dictatorship, only in real life the dictatorship is permanent."
Explicitly jumping from theory to practice, even! Pointing out the seeds of the practice are IN the theory.
"Marxist analysis is a useful tool with an unfortunate name."
Yeah, like Hitlerian analysis is a useful tool with an unfortunate name. Oh, wait, there's no Hitlerian analysis because nobody wants to be associated with Nazism, while plenty of left-wingers are totally unembarrassed to be associated with Communism.
Pretty lame to talk about what Marx said if you think he’s too evil for you to bother learning what he said.
It may result in angry attacks on professors that are utterly off point because you refuse to learn. But being angry and wrong is about the same as being just angry, eh?
I think it's quite clear I'm no fan of Marx; I just like to deal with actual Marx not some simplistic cartoon.
Look, I just listened to the podcast. And I did learn something from it: Marxism is a lot stupider than I'd recalled.
It's so stupid the mind shrinks from recalling the details, really. Human memory cannot encompass its stupidity, on each new encounter one is shocked anew by how mind bogglingly stupid it is.
I'm glad you kinda tried to learn.
Labor theory of value. Exploitation defined in a way that you're actually better off being 'exploited'. Failing to understand that supply and demand limits hoarding. It just goes on and on.
By the way, in as pure a case of serendipity as I've ever encountered; I listened to the podcast while my son was in his piano lesson. He came out, got in the car, and told me he had a song he wanted to share with me that his teacher had introduced him to:
They Might Be Giants - Kiss Me, Son of God (Official Audio)
Wild, huh?
Heh.
TMBG has it’s moments.
James K. Polk: “Napoleon of the Stump”
I think Nozick is like 2 lectures after the one I linked.
All communist regimes are dictatorships aka kleptocracies.
Fundamental Theorem of Government: Corruption is not an unfortunate side effect of the wielding of power. It is the purpose of it from day 1.
You go into power to make a better life for yourself and your family by getting in the way or skimming.
Your theorem continues to be just ideological pablum.
It misunderstands how people are incentivized by things other than money.
More importantly it fails to engage with history or moral philosophy in any kind of substantive way.
I incorporate by reference my previous remarks on this annual subject.
How about a "Victims of Islam Day?"
Lets see, could be September 11, Duh, or October 7? (October 6? I guess you could say An-War Sadat was a "Victim of Islam", Maybe September 5, or December 21, October 23?
It's like when me and my sister (go ahead Queenie) used to ask when "Kid's Day" was
"Every Day is Kid's Day" my mom would say,
Frank "Happy "Victims of Islam" Day! you're still alive!"
How about a Victims of Religion Day. Islam is certainly not alone in creating lots of victims.
They're just the best at it
For the last few hundred years, perhaps. Remember the death throes of Christianity throwing gays into jail only disappeared here some time around when 30 year olds were born.
Something I'm not even sure Jesus would do. He tended to use the carrot rather than the stick. If someone looks at your lousy behavior, and they think, "if that's how Christians behave, to hell with it", then you are a hellbound sinner, regardless of their status.
Nicer than throwing them off buildings like the Moose-lums still do.
Baby steps?
Descriptions of torture devices devised and implemented by reprehensible Christians can be an interesting read . . . but budget plenty of time, because there is an enormous volume of superstition-driven depravity to cover.
All pay heed! Now enters his holiness Torquemada, the Grand Inquisitor of the Spanish Inquisition!
Torquemada; do not employ him for compassion
Torquemada; do not beg him for forgiveness
Torquemada; do not ask him for mercy
Let's face it, you can't Torquemada anything!
My nominee for the worst pun of all time, perfectly delivered by Phil Leeds.
Well as bad as throwing gays into jail is, it's not near as bad as throwing them from buildings.
But it's I think worth noting that most dietary and moral religious strictures came about as health and safety laws, not eating pork or shellfish, monogamy, no same sex relationships, all came about to stop the spread of disease or food poisoning.
Our medical and food safety technology have advanced far enough to sufficiently handle those risks.
But I don't think there is much doubt that in a primitive society eating a strict kosher or halal diet, and living a strictly chaste or monogamous life led to a healthier longer life.
That may or may not be true in 2023; taking history as a whole, it's complete nonsense. Christianity conquered Europe by force, committed mass genocide in the New World, burned witches and heretics and headed the African slave trade.
With respect to Judaism, Joshua engaged in mass genocide of the Canaanites, and God himself removed Saul from the throne for not being bloody enough when he was told to kill the Amalekites. Psalm 137:9 says "Blessed is he who seizes (Bablylonian) infants and dashes them against the rocks." In fact, large sections of the Old Testament are one big gorefest. You yourself have called for the extermination of the Gazans.
So yeah, Islam is nothing to be proud of in terms of violence. It's hardly worse than the other ones though.
To the Jews' credit, the Canaanites refused to drop other members of Yahweh's pantheon.
While there’s genocide a-plenty in the Tanakh, it’s hard to know how much of it is historical, whereas the genocidal or murderous consequences of Christianity and Islam are well-documented.
And Christianity was not born bloody. Contrast that with the Massacre of Banu Qurayza.
SRG2, whether Christianity was born bloody, it wasted no time becoming bloody once it acquired a bit of political power. No sooner had Constantine Christianized Rome but Christian sects immediately began demanding the empire persecute other sects, as well as pagans.
And I think the central problem is with religion itself, especially in conjunction with state power. The nature of religion is that it does not take kindly to peacefully co-existing with other religions. We have largely been spared religious warfare in the US only because we have an agreement that no religion gets to control the levers of power. Even so, it has still found plenty of ways to assert itself. I grew up in the South at a time in which the KKK was largely the social and political arm of various churches.
Coincidentally I just opened an old article in Skeptic magazine on the subject of Christianity and state violence:
https://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/how-christian-violence-abetted-advent-of-nationalism/
“The nature of religion is that it does not take kindly to peacefully co-existing with other religions.”
It’s more the nature of monotheism. If you believe there’s only one God, then people who believe differently are necessarily wrong, and leading themselves, others, and their children to damnation.
"The nature of religion is that it does not take kindly to peacefully co-existing with other religions."
I would write instead, "The nature of religion is that it does not take kindly to peacefully co-existing with other centers of power."
Except the NFL of course.
They kicked the Church's ass and took over Sundays!
No Christianity didn't conquer Europe by force. Most countries in Europe became Christian due to the voluntary conversion of their monarchs.
And those monarch’s subjects?
And wars like the 30 Years War? Where does that fit into this voluntary conversion thing?
Actually, when Christianity spread through Europe, the notion connoted by "most countries" had yet to be invented. For centuries, the Catholic Church served as a (very rough) approximate sociological precursor to the modern nation state. Quite a bit changed when that interval ended—conspicuously including the still-under-noticed disappearance from the scene of an actually effectual notion of natural rights for individuals.
I think it is an excellent idea - and Nov 7 makes sense. It's only one country's elections that might occasionally be affected by it.
May 1 on the other hand has traditionally been a festival day in the West since well before Marx's parents had historically inevitable sex.
Maybe the earliest Marxist dialectic?
"Kommen, Henrietchen, look at our kleine synthesis!"
Count me in. I think people should be reminded of the evil of Communism daily.
I'm not sure about "daily". I would also counsel against using the word "communism", like the word "socialism" to describe any political party or political/economic policy you don't like. It's dishonest at worst, and at best displays a wanton ignorance.
But it's also a swell way to signal tribal loyalty!
Just ask any cult member.
Why exclude all the other isms? Not to "all lives" this, but there are plenty of victims of tyrannical governments out there, and many of them suffered at the hands of non-communist governments.
No other -ism has come close to killing so many people.
Though perhaps we can have an "antiauthoritarianism day" which would commemorate the victims of authoritarian rule whether communist, Nazi, religious, nationalist, etc.
Well, one has...
...and that's the one I was referring to.
Strangely, neither you nor the Professor bothered to mention it?
If those lesser isms want a day of their own, they're going to need to go out and run up their numbers.
Don't give them ideas.
Mao, Stalin, Castro, Chavez, Ho Chi Minh could rightfully claim that they freed their countries from the tyrannical economic slavery of foreign capitalism. Which earned them the almost worshipful respect of their peoples — and allowed them to get away with a lot.
Killing all your enemies generally only leaves the the ones who know which side their worshipful respect is buttered on.
And if there is one absolute truth to human existence people as a whole vastly prefer the aspirational economic slavery of urban foreign capitalism than the homegrown hopeless misery of traditional agrarian rural subsistence farming.
It was clear to American planners that Ho would win any free election in Vietnam, and Castro in Cuba. Chavez was actually elected in Venezuela, as was Ortega in Nicaragua (that is, once we stopped holding a gun to the electorate's collective head). It was only afterward that they were able to eliminate political rivals.
Economic slavery to capitalist masters was "aspirational"?
Curious that I see nothing in this thread from the commenters who habitually call Ilya a leftist.
Watch out there -- suggesting that being a leftist means one likes communism might lead the tone police to accuse you of "redbaiting".