The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Victims of Communism Day— 2024
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 broad enough 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 inherent flaws 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. Some of these other factors, especially the last, 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 virtually inevitable in a socialist economic system where 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 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 and indefensible invasion of Ukraine 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." It is also telling that most communists in Russia and elsewhere have joined with many far-right nationalists in backing Putin's line on the war.
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).
China's horrific repression of the Uighur minority is reminiscent of similar policies under Mao and Stalin, though it has not - so far - reached the level of actual mass murder. But imprisoning over 1 million people in horrific concentration camps is more than bad enough.
Far-left support for Hamas since the horrific October 7, 2023 terrorist attack is yet another reminder of the inherently evil nature of communist ideology. Backing terrorism is part of a long history of support for repression and mass murder. Not all extreme socialists of the type who support Hamas are communists. But the latter are a subset of the former.
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.
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 would also be happy to back 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
Always fun to see the "liberals" here rush to defense of the Reds.
Which liberals are defending which reds?
today, no. in the past, plenty.
Ah, so like before Volokh Conspiracy existed? Trying to clarify what you mean by "here"?
Without going back and looking at stuff from past years, my strong suspicion is that you have adopted an over-broad definition of "reds". But feel free to prove me wrong by providing links.
You can read an attempted defense of Marx and his ideals below. You can read complaints about "red-baiting" in lots of other comment threads. You can also read a bunch of people defending the college-based Hamas fans, who have tendencies to decorate their illegal encampments with hammers and sickle stencils and to demand that other people provide to them according to their needs rather than their output.
Red-baiting is a thing. Criticizing it isn't the same as defending Marx.
You posted the same thing last year and you were wrong then as well.
What is often overlooked is that the close relationship between Islam and Communism. Hamas is openly Marxist, and the other groups are as well.
Hamas is not in fact the least bit Marxist, openly or otherwise. This is just an example of stupid right-wingers misusing the term "Marxist" (sometimes communist or socialist) for anything they don't like.
Hamas are not freedom fighters, but dictator-kleptocrat fighters, ready to slide right in as the murderous authoritarians lining their soon to be constructed palaces.
In this sense, they are like communists, Nazis, and others, who have the same goal, but us a patter to gain followers to help take over.
I think there probably is such a thing as "true Marxism" that does not involve high ranking kleptocrats living in palaces, but I also think it only rarely makes an appearance in the real world. As with many other ideologies, there is a huge disconnect between the theory and the practice. And given human nature, I'm not sure it could be otherwise. If you have a chance to steal a billion dollars, and you have the type of character that put you at the top in the first place, you'll probably find it hard to say no regardless of your ideology.
Harry Truman privately referred to General Chiang Kai-Shek as "Cash My Check." And a Marxist he was not.
Actually, bad guys have ideologies too. It's not all 'patter.'
How hard some people work to not know their enemy!
Eh, I think often the bad guys' useful idiots have ideology, and the bad guys themselves are just in it to be bad guys, and it's all patter to them. Used to manipulate the useful idiots.
Not a hard and fast rule, of course, but a lot of the time.
The awful idealists are the worst bad guys because they have broader ambitions.
The Nazis. ISIS. Mao.
I would substute Lenin for Mao.
It’s not that hard to read Mao as a clever megalomaniac in it for himself, rather than someone with a deep commitment to Marxism. He certainly understood Marxist theory as well as anyone, but that doesn’t mean he was a true believer. Most of his actions in power can be seen as jockeying for position, eliminating rivals, and boosting himself.
The Great Leap Forward was his (nutty) attempt to speed up the industrialisation of China so that China became a great economic power while he was still in power. That China is a great economic power now, fifty years after his death, wouldn’t have been worth a bucket of warm spit to him.
Stupid right wingers claiming hamas are marxists is not much different that leftist claiming the german national socialists party were right wing.
Oh hay a stupid right winger claiming Nazis were left wing! Now do the environmental movement!
Bob's deluded - THIS is what these threads always devolve into!
Moron.
I guess you think the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea is democratic, and the People's Republic of China has a republican government because the words are right there in the names.
Which leaders did Trump regularly praise?
Putin, Xi Jinping, and Kim Jong Un.
A literal KGB agent turned President, and leaders of 2 of the few remaining Communist countries.
I think stronger argument might be that Communism, at least at the upper echelons, was actually right wing.
So, you're saying that Trump knew how to say, "Nice doggy!"?
Trump was the "nice doggy".
myself : "Which leaders did Trump regularly praise?"
I think the stronger argument might be Trump isn't connected to serious values or thought-out ideologies of any kind. The reason he trotted after Putin & Kim like an eager-to-please poodle isn't because of the former's Fascist Nationalism or the latter's Maoist Communism, but because he sees both as the Big Daddy he wants to be.
Please remember Trump is completely hollow inside. One you eliminate his child-like wants, selfishness, and spewing rage, there's absolutely nothing left. And that was before all the recent evidence his brain is mid-rot and growing worse, month by month.
As someone put it, Putin is the real-world version of what Trump fantasizes himself to be. So is Kim. By kowtowing to both, by fawning over Putin in public and going to Korea to visit Kim (!), he gave them added stature, particularly Kim.
Sometimes it was just so obvious. In 2018, there was a ceremony marking the armistice ending World War I in Paris. Trump sat among all his Nato allies shoulders-down and mopishly glum, like a little boy told to sit still in church. Then Putin arrived and Trump's face lit-up with radiant joy. His Big Daddy had arrived. Maybe some day he'll be a Big Daddy too!
https://time.com/5451539/putin-trump-thumbs-up-paris-wwi-commemoration/
But in the same way that Trump's vacuousness is plugged into the Conservative id I think he reveals that those leaders are far-right in an important aspect.
The left is supposed to be about equality and communism, a radical expression of that. Man and woman being more equal, the class hierarchy being flattened, etc, etc. And I think communism on a small scale can qualify as left wing. But when you scale it up to a country then you need a strong authority to enforce that equality, and that authority becomes convinced they're entitled to that power in a way that other people aren't.
So in that aspect I think communist leadership typically turns right wing, and I think Trump's instinctive reaction to those leaders is evidence of that.
1. There’s an ideological component to Left-wing economic thought & policies, reducing class barriers as you say.
2. There’s an ideological component to Right-wing economic thought & policies, prioritizing free markets.
3. I also think there’s an ideological component to statist communism, however anti-human and destructive its rule.
4. But (to merge the comment theme below), I don’t believe there was an ideological component to Nazi economic policy. Facism has many themes : Blood, soil, nationalism, race, perpetual war, and state celebration of brutality & cruelty, but economics are incidental to them all. Obviously it is an “ism” that prioritizes State over the individual – which means more government control of the economy. Yet that seems more mechanistic than ideological to me. But – hey – defining Facism is notoriously hard, so feel free to disagree.
5. And I don’t see violence as exclusively Left or Right. All of history and oceans of blood are behind me on that one.
6. And there’s zero ideological about Donald Trump. He’s driven by appetites, resentments, and those insecurities that drive him to scam and/or mistreat everyone to validate his personal “worth”. Plus he’s dumb as a box of rocks. You might think he’s a devotee of the free markets, but that doesn’t really describe a lifelong criminal huckster. Markets are different than scams. Trump is always interested in hustles first.
I recommend The Vampire Economy written in 1939 by a German communist, describing Nazi And to some extent Italian Fascist economics.
That it’s written by a commie in 1939 avoids the problems of bias - at least in the sense that it’s not written by a free market type so you’re not getting a Friedmanite take. And it is contemporary so we avoid historical revisionism.
The overall picture is a nightmare of controls on prices, access to raw materials, wage control (up or down) , controls on hiring and firing, requirement to hire party members at the expense of skilled workers, an enormous and ever changing regulatory bureaucracy, with business people spending at least half their time in meetings navigating the bureaucracy.
There’s an unofficial hierarchy where the businessman is completely in the hands of the local party man and industry boards. But he can escape that control by a mixture of bribes ( hiring a party connected lawyer at vast expense to launder bribes) but mostly by knowing higher level party men and keeping them sweet. This carries on up the chain till you get to Krupp who can escape many controls - though never currency controls - by being pally with Mr H and Goering.
But before too long even Krupp can’t escape. Because although the biggest concerns are allowed to make profits ( smaller ones not) they can’t choose what to do with their profits.
They can’t pay dividends without permission and they can’t invest in any new plant etc without permission. And even if they could they’d have to get permits for all the raw materials to build new plant. So in reality the big boys like Krupp have to invest their profits, indeed any liquid funds, in projects directed by the party.
Such as in German iron ore, very low quality so a whole new processing industry has to be created because existing plant is designed for high quality ore. But they don’t get a choice.
The ideology isn’t hard to divine - there is a grudging acceptance unlike the Soviet system that the businessman knows more about his business than the party man. But he works for the benefit of the state not himself. And in practice everything he does is going to be monitored controlled and subject to permits and licences.
So you might say that Hitler had some business support when he came to power because at least he wasn’t a commie. But smaller businesses learned quickly that they were working for the state not themselves, while entwined with regulatory bindweed, lubricated dangerously with bribes.
But before long even Krupp, IG Farben and the other big boys found out that the same system applied to them too. They just had to answer to the higher ups.
1. There’s an ideological component to Left-wing economic thought & policies, reducing class barriers as you say.
2. There’s an ideological component to Right-wing economic thought & policies, prioritizing free markets.
There’s an interesting distinction there worth noting.
The left wing policy as you put it, describes an end, it does not specify the means. Whereas the right wing policy doesn’t. Or rather the right wing policy describes a means that is an end in itself.
In reality, left wing policy traditionally had a means that is an end in itself too – public ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange. It was axiomatic that the economy must be controlled by the people, not by a separate class of people whose role it was to control productive activity etc. That’s what “reducing class barriers” meant.
But with the repeated failures of socialist efforts economically, modern lefties have largely abandoned “public ownership” and are satisfied with good solid taxes and redistribution therefrom, with a strong dose of regulatory control to make sure the business class don’t step out of line.
The right wing policy trumpets the end in itself of liberty (at least in commercial affairs) and the same liberty as a means to a desirable end (ie that it is more efficient than any other system in delivering the goods to the masses.)
The left is supposed to be about equality and communism, a radical expression of that. Man and woman being more equal, the class hierarchy being flattened, etc, etc. And I think communism on a small scale can qualify as left wing. But when you scale it up to a country then you need a strong authority to enforce that equality, and that authority becomes convinced they’re entitled to that power in a way that other people aren’t.So in that aspect I think communist leadership typically turns right wing
Entertaining, if entertainingly nutty
Alternatively, and more sensibly you could say that “Man and woman being more equal, the class hierarchy being flattened” is – unless it is to be achieved by prayer – inherently authoritarian. How is this equality to be achieved without compulsion, even on a small scale ? What is this “flattening” to which you refer ? It sounds painful.
Scale doesn’t really have anything to do with it. Big or small the “left wing” impulse is necessarily authoritarian, if it is to advance beyond mere aspiration. Left wingery is not every man is my brother Christianity. It is the doctrine that equality (or at least more equality) must be achieved. If it doesn’t arise naturally, which it doesn’t, it requires compulsion. To a greater or lesser degree depending on how much failure you are willing to accept in the achievement of equality.
Meanwhile on the right (by which I mean anything that is not left) there are certainly authoritarian strains – imposing your rule on your fellow men is inherently authoritarian, and if it is not undertaken for left wing motives, then it is right wing authoritarianism, under the definition.
However there are also non authoritarian strains of right wingery which can exist in the real world rather than just the imagination – those strains related to liberalism (in the original sense) , laissez faire, and so on.
So we can conclude that while left wingery is necessarily authoritarian, right wingery (ie everything that isn’t left wingery) may be authoritarian or not, according to the details.
Entertaining, if entertainingly nutty.
Alternatively, and more sensibly you could say that “Man and woman being more equal, the class hierarchy being flattened” is – unless it is to be achieved by prayer – inherently authoritarian. How is this equality to be achieved without compulsion, even on a small scale ? What is this “flattening” to which you refer ? It sounds painful.
I don't necessarily believe that Communist leadership is right wing, but the point is it's a hell of a lot easier case to make than Nazis being left wing.
Otherwise, a strong class hierarchy destroys freedom.
Using force to destroy that hierarchy destroys freedom.
That's why folks are still trying to find the proper balance.
"Scale doesn’t really have anything to do with it. Big or small the “left wing” impulse is necessarily authoritarian"
And this is why I have trouble taking you seriously. You just jump out and ascribe a negative ulterior motive to the folks you don't agree with. I know many left wing folks who are almost defined by their inherent resistance to authority, and you're just going to brand them as "necessarily authoritarian"?
"So we can conclude that while left wingery is necessarily authoritarian, right wingery (ie everything that isn’t left wingery) may be authoritarian or not, according to the details."
No we can't because the idea is ridiculous. Personally, think the best metric for left vs right is fairness vs order. The left wants to make things fair (the thing Communism was obsessed with!) and the right wants to create order (nice clear definitions of men and women, put the bad folks in jail, etc). I think that's actually a fair measure for each side.
But if you accept that idea then I think authoritarianism, ie strong man leadership, is much, much more attractive to people on the right. On the left, the loss of freedom instead comes from technocracy, committees of highly educated individuals handing down decrees. You may despise that particular type of loss of freedom, but it's not authoritarian.
You just jump out and ascribe a negative ulterior motive to the folks you don’t agree with. I know many left wing folks who are almost defined by their inherent resistance to authority, and you’re just going to brand them as “necessarily authoritarian”?
Not at all. I do not ascribe negative motives, I merely remark that any attempt to achieve a particular END, other than one that arises voluntarily, necessarily requires the use of force / coercion. This is not particular to left wing ends. Obviously as I said before if you have left wing ends in mind, but resort only to prayer, then you do not impose any force or coercion on your fellow man. But if you wish to achieve your end, or even an approach to it, you cannot restrict yourself to voluntary means.
That is what I mean by saying that left wingery is necessarily authoritarian. It does not mean the motive is necessarily authoritarian, it means the means of achieving the ends must be authoritarian. But as I say this is not particular to lefties – any end-seeking necessarily requires force / coercion, ie authoritarianism.
Personally, think the best metric for left vs right is fairness vs order.
But that distinction leaves out those who do not have any particular metric in mind – ie those who are content to let voluntary activity and voluntary association take its course, and who limit the role of government to preventing attempts at compulsion.
Obviously you are welcome to your distinction, but it really only covers the turf within the set of authoritarians, and omits the non authoritarians. Indeed it doesn’t really even cover the full authoritarian turf, for there are many other ends you can pursue besides “fairness” and “order.” Like the glory of God, the appeasement of different gods, national glory, ethnic dominance, dynastic survival, the improvement of human stock, the prevention of climate change and so on, indefinitely.
Moreover “fairness” (I will allow you “fairness” in the lefty sense out of kindly indulgence, and not debate all the other senses) and “order” are not opposites or even necessarily rivals. To take an obvious example free markets disrupt both and so both are allied against this disruptive influence.
So I am unconvinced by your distinction. Which is hardly surprising since cleverer folk than both of us have been trying to draw all these sorts of distinctions coherently and convincingly for a very long time, with very limited success.
On the left, the loss of freedom instead comes from technocracy, committees of highly educated individuals handing down decrees. You may despise that particular type of loss of freedom, but it’s not authoritarian.
Another of those splendid English irregular verbs.
I hand down decrees
You are authoritarian
He is a fascist
The more I think about your "non-authoritarian committees of highly educated individuals handing down decrees the more delightful I find the idea.
For there are analogies which spring instantly to mind.
The first, obviously, is the Nazi system that I have described above. Layer upon layer of such committees - Amt fur Deutsche Roh und Werkstoffe, Kommission fur Wirtschaftspolitik, Marktvereinigung, Reichsdevisenamt, Reichswirtschaftskammer, Treuehandler der Arbeit, and those are just some of the big boys - there's hundreds of them. Of course you may choose to doubt the real education and expertise of the committee members, but I see your doubt and raise it right back at ya in the case of your committees.
This, obviously, touches on your annoyance that there are folk making the case that the Nazis were "left-wing."
"left wing" and "right wing" are fairly fuzzy concepts, but taking them in a broad sense, there were left-wing aspects of Nazi policy and also right-wing aspects.
But as to this matter of economic policy we need to place the Nazis on a relative scale. They were intermediate between the Soviets and New Deal America. New Deal America went big on committees of experts, higher taxes, regulation and direction, but within the context of a privately owned economy. But New Deal committe-ing and regulation and taxation was considerably less like the Soviet Union economically than was Nazi Germany. So if we place Coolidge's America at say 100 on a 0-100 left right scale, and Soviet Russia at O, then we might get something like this :
Soviet Union 0
Nazi Germany 50
New Deal America 80
Coolidge's America 100
So the Nazis are closer to the New Deal than they are to Stalin - after all they still have private businesses. But they're much further from Coolidge than they are from the New Deal. Does that make them left or right on economics ? Well compared to the Soviet Union they're right. But compared to anything American they're left.
The second analogy - of highly educated committees handing down decrees - is of course ...... CAPITALISM !
The committees (the Board of Directors) and lower committees (the Canadian Board or the IT working group or whatever) hand down decrees to the junior management, who pass them on to the poor old workers. Hence the miserable oppressed life of the worker, about which every lefty in good standing has repeatedly railed over a beer, or even a glass of wine.
But there's a fairly important difference between these decreeing committees. You have to obey the lefty committees. Their decrees bind you and are enforced. But the capitalist decree committees only bind you to the extent that you wish to keep your job. You always have the option to quit and get a job in a different company, with a different committee calling the shots. You can shop around for the decreeing committee you like best. You can also shop around for your favored trade off of extra cash v harshness of decrees.
But if you really don't like any of the decreeing committees at all, then you still have the option of paddling your own canoe, and being committee free.
Thus, as I explained above, your lefty committees are necessarily authoritarian (obviously I'm not buying your magical redefinition of the term) whereas the capitalist committees are not. You don't have to obey them. You can choose to go under the thumb of a different committee if you wish, or under no committee at all.
Thus my conclusion that left-wingery (once it leaves the bar or the dorm and seeks to be put into action) is necessarily authoritarian, whereas right-wingery is not. (Not necessarily that is, though some versions of right wingery will be.)
....OR he sought to try and make some peace with both countries and calling them evil is not super helpful in that regard.
You really cannot compare Trump's foreign policy to the shit show that has followed it.
Add Victor Orban.
I guess Trump was terrified of him too.
Really Brett, the idea that Trump's plan was to be nice to these characters to keep them from misbehaving is fucking ridiculous.
Would you ever consider the simple explanation - that he admires them, and likes the stuff they do? No. Of course you wouldn't.
Cultist.
Really Brett, the idea that Trump’s plan was to be nice to these characters to keep them from misbehaving is fucking ridiculous.
Leaving aside whether that was Trump's policy, I don't think it's at all obvious that it's a "fucking ridiculous" policy. It's a variant of "speak softly and carry a big stick" - so long as you do have a big stick.
For leaders like Putin and Kim, and most dictators, prestige isn't just nice to have, it may be essential to keeping power. I don't really believe that in his heart of hearts Putin needs to conquer Ukraine, or at least the eastern parts of it. What matters to him is his status and prestige - in the eyes of the Russian people. "Victory in Ukraine !" gives him the same sort of prestige boost as "Recovery of the Malvinas !" would have got the Argentine guy, whose name escapes me - if he'd recovered them. The bigger dog Putin seems to be, the safer and more secure he feels. And ditto with Kim.
Thus if you are a US President you get to choose whether to abuse Putin or to puff him. The former dents his prestige in Russia (a bit.) But what did you the US President get in return for abusing him ? The warm glow of feeling that you have abused a bad man. But nothing practical.
Whereas if you puff him, he likes that. His prestige goes up in Russia (a bit.) But he also knows that it's a gift that can be taken away again. Maybe that makes your next call to him saying "Don't", more likely to be effective than if you had abused him earlier.
My recollection is that regardless of whether he puffed these foreign nasties, Trump was much more willing to go to trade sanctions than previous Presidents, when he felt the need to administer a kicking.
Whether he was doing it or not, it doesn't seem to me to be obviously nutty to puff those who have a need to be puffed. It gives you a card. And the more cards you have, the longer you can wait before dropping the Big Card.
You and I may feel that a few more spoonfuls of personal prestige are not worth crossing the road for. But then we're not dictators (and no doubt that is the world's loss). Dictators think differently. And mostly what they think about is (1) how can I live forever and (2) how do I stay in power forever ?
Sonja T : “….the german national socialists party were right wing.”
Why are all neo-nazis today are right-wingers? Why were nazi supporters around the world in Hitler’s time right-wingers? Why did right-wingers helped nazi war criminals escape justice after the war? Why did wealthy right-wing industrialists inside Germany support Hitler’s rise to power? Why did Hitler intervene in the Spanish Civil War on the side of the right-wing forces?
I don’t know how much brain-wattage Sonja T has. By all appearance, very little. But an attempt to answer these questions just might help this person achieve rational thought. Perhaps for the very first time!
At the very least, the rest of us will laugh at Sonja’s bungling attempt.
"Nazi" is short (in German) for the National Socialist German Workers' Party.
Thank you for embarrassing yourself on Sonja's behalf.
MeanGene : “Nazi” is short.....(etc)
People forget the early Nazi Party was all over the map economic policy-wise. In large part, this was due to the ambivalence of its main leader. Hilter was interested in economic policy only to the extent it delivered popular support, brought the backing of the wealthy, and financed his dreams of carnage and conquest. Otherwise, the subject didn't command his attention. Speer thought he was uninformed and uninterested in macro-economic theory and policy, much less ideologically commited to any direction.
Of course there came a time when Hitler had to chose an overall position. The deciding factor wasn't ideology, but buying the support of rich German industrialists and oligarchs. His choice was reflected in the Night of Long Knives. Many party officials from the Nazi's left wing did survive the purge - Goebbels himself being the most promenient example - but the leading proponents of socialist policies were butchered. In fact, that side of the party was known as the Strasserist faction after Gregor Strasser, who was shot in his jail cell and left to slowly bleed-out on the orders of Heydrich.
His wing of the party - Goebbels included - were more docile and circumspect after that. Hitler continued to coddle the wealthy industrialists throughout his ruinous rule. He didn't like it - as with our Rightists today, his resentments had the breadth of an entire universe - but he needed their support to finance endless war.
Although as I note elsewhere, this "coddling" of industrialists did not last "throughout his rule." The Nazi economy even pre war was engulfed in regulation - ie you couldn't even buy raw materials for your factory without a permit, which was issued very slowly if at all, on a quota basis by officials. And anything with a foreign angle - well getting foreign currency even once you had the permits could take a year.
Your party connections dictated how you navigated through the undergrowth of controls and if you were pals with Goering or some other bigwig, your way would be smoothed. But only up to a point. In the end even the biggest enterprises had to do what they were told. The big armament companies made big profits, but they had to invest those profits at the direction of the party bosses, in eyewateringly bad investments. They were only paper profits.
The big industrialists thought they were buying a poodle in 1932 and 1933. But they had discovered even pre war that the poodle was a hyena who regarded them as simply a means to his ends. (Who also regarded them and their pursuit of profit with utter contempt. Emotionally Hitler was a commie, even was not crazy enough to adopt commie economics. He did have a Four Year Plan though - the fat guy was in charge of that.)
Imagine the US, with the mega capitalists like Bezos, Musk, Gates, Zuckerberg etc making splendid profits. But one call from a White House big wig and Musk is told, close Twitter / X and build a $100 billion solar farm in Arizona. Within a year. Bezos is told - provide Amazon Prime to all party members, and all soldiers of the Wehrmacht for free. Gates is told - your foundation. Stop doing that, hand over the money to pay for a new system of dry docks we're building near Kiel. You'll get some non voting non dividend paying preferred shares.
This is how the German industrialists were controlling their poodle by the late 1930s.
Today is Victims of Communism Day at the Volokh Conspiracy.
It also should be Victims of Florida's Right-Wing War on Women Day.
And, of course, it also is likely to be Male Grievance Day.
Or Racial Slur Day.
Or Muslim Day.
Or Drag Queen Day.
Or White Grievance Day.
Or Superstitious Gay-Bashing Day.
Or Gun Nut Day.
Or Affirmative Action For Conservative Professors and Law Clerks Day.
Or Trans Fetish Day.
The Volokh Conspiracy: Official Legal Blog of America's Vestigial Conservative Bigots.
I just don't get you, Revolting. So Florida's waging Right-Wing War on Women by not killing them before they're born?
You keep it up and I'm not gonna recommend you to the Spirit in the Sky.
Frank
Republicans seem determined to ride anti-abortion absolutism straight to cultural irrelevance in modern, reasoning, educated America.
Fine by me, clingers. I like my competitors in the culture war to have weaknesses, and superstition is as weak as any.
East Germany wasn’t a barrel of laughs either, except for the regimes efforts to make their own version of “Beach Blanket Bingo” Heisser Sommer (Hot Summer) (1968 DEFA)
Don’t think it’s on the Youtubes or Netflix, I’d loan you my DVD but you need a player that will do Region 1 Discs
“A group of girls and a separate group of boys come across each other whilst travelling from Leipzig to Ruegen Island for the summer holidays. Initially trying to ignore and avoid each other, the two groups find themselves billeted close by, relaxing together, enjoying each other’s company and the resulting relationships that develop. The movie deals with the conflicts of each relationship in the group by singing and dancing their way through each situation including a brief encounter with the VoPo’s – the police. The majority of the film is shot on Ruegen Island which at the time, was a popular destination for East Germans and today is popular with travellers the world over. Included are some early footage of Leipzig and East Berlin during the reconstruction and re-building era of the former GDR.”
Frank
1. My Ex-wife was from East Germany. She grew-up watching Little House on the Prairie and Bonanza dubbed in German.
2. After German reunification, there was a period of lingering East German nostalgia from some people. This manifested itself in strange ways. There was a hideously ugly building in Berlin's center called the Palast der Republik, which the new government wanted to tear-down to rebuild the historic Berliner Schloss on the site. But East Germans had gotten married and gone bowling in the Palast, so opposed the move. The only solution was to dither years until the unused Palast decayed beyond saving.
Another thing was traffic lights. Berlin had two of everything - museums, zoos, opera houses - and traffic light standards. In that case the West German standard won, which led to a odd obsession with the GDR version. Its green light had a pictogram of a little guy wearing a fedora hat and walking with a jaunty step. There were shops in Berlin dedicated exclusively to nostalgic merchandise of East German Green Traffic Light Guy.
This was ultimately enshrined in a movie called Good Bye, Lenin! Its thinniest of plots has a woman in a coma when the Germanys reunited. She awakes, but her health is precarious. Her children think she can't survive the shock of learning the GDR fell, so they dress in East German clothes, fill her house with East German furniture, fake East German television, and serve her East German food. My Ex conceded the movie was silly, but still loved it anyway.
2. Region 1 is the Americas. Did you mean Region 2 (which includes Germany).
Little House was/is "Unser Kleiner Farm"(Our Little Farm) Hogans Heroes "Ein Kafig voller Helden" (Cage full of Heroes) Bewitched "Verliebt in eine Hexe" (in love with a Witch)
Big Macs, a Big Mac, and I didn't go to Burger King
Frank
yeah, can't keep my regions straight
Given that we have this same post every May 1 and nobody says anything new, I refer to my remarks from past years on the subject and leave it at that.
Agreed that Kibbutzim, as "socialist experiments" and Communism are called in Israel, presents a danger to the world: since the founding of Degania (1910?), "a place where Zionism met Marxism," Communist "settlers" have killed indigenous peoples and raped the land.
That a scholar would "forget" this especially murderous brand of Communism is unforgivable: Israeli Kibbutzim "is yet another reminder of the inherently evil nature of communist ideology."
Yes, let's mourn the victims of Communism, even those who were murdered by Israeli Communists.
https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/04/27/threshold-crossed/israeli-authorities-and-crimes-apartheid-and-persecution
Socialism is really only a danger to the world when armed with coercive power. Absent that, it just fails, but can't bring anybody else down with it.
On a really small scale socialism can even sort of work, so long as it's embedded in a larger capitalist society. It just can never scale.
The problem with socialism is described well by David Friedman, Milton's son, in "Love is not Enough", one of the chapters of The Machinery of Freedom.
"Under any institutions, there are essentially only three ways I can get another person to help me achieve my ends: Love, trade, and force."
His point is that, in a free market, you can use both love AND trade; People routinely do things in a free market for reasons of "love", broadly understood, but trade is also available. People do things for others in exchange for others doing things for them.
But socialism eschews trade, and "love is not enough", so socialists always end up using force.
Well, for small enough groups, love CAN be enough. But love doesn't scale. So neither does socialism.
"there are essentially only three ways I can get another person to help me achieve my ends: Love, trade, and force"
And deceit.
David is obviously not quite so sharp as Daddy.
He considered deceit to be a species of force. A debatable choice, to be sure.
I notice how there is no mention of Jews in this post.
we know, we know, Karl Marx was Jewish, well, so was Hey-Zeuss, we can't all be infallible.
No antisemites on the right, so Roger must be a liberal in disguise.
It has been some time since economically-based ideologies like communism have been the mumbo-jumbo de jure which dictators have used to seize power and kill people. We’ve long since moved on to other, more au currant kinds of mumbo-jumbo.
A post like this, which regards the mumbo-jumbo du jour as something dictators actually give a shit about, as if the mumbo-jumbo itself actually means anything, is positively quaint. Dictators really do seem to behave somewhat as described in Orwell’s 1984, where the expositors of supposedly completely opposite and warring ideologies all run their societies pretty much the same way.
Perhaps it’s a distant murmur of the 19th and early 20th century concept of idealism, in which ideas were thought responsible for history. They are sometimes. But they don’t seem to have much relevance to dictators’ habit of seizing power or human beings’ habit of letting them.
The thing to remember about Communism is that it had nothing to do with Marx, who predicted that his "proletarian revolution" would happen in end-stage capitalism. In Russia capitalism had barely gotten started and there was no "proleteriat" in the Marxist sense, and as for China the entire machinery of capitalism (capitalists + industrial workers) was out of country.
Marx was prescient about many things, as any economist would tell you -- for example, analyzing the boom-and-bust nature of capitalism and how it tends to concentrate wealth in fewer and fewer hands. But his prediction about revolution was self-defeating; industrialized countries, aware of the danger, wisely de-fanged it by making modest moves towards socialism.
As for why Communist atrocities tended to be big, it's because 1) they happened in relatively backward countries with no democratic tradition where people just "follow orders" without question and 2) Communists are central planners who can organize things on a large scale, for good or bad.
The revolution and the way that the rich were pilloried was pretty Marx-shaped, even if in operation it ended up well different from his kind of sci-fi utopian ideas of post-worker's revolution development.
Well, they claimed the Ukrainian “kulaks” were rich, but did they really even believe it themselves? The whole business of the famine was pretty much to stifle Ukrainians’ tendency towards nationalism. The class bullshit was just a veneer of mumbo-jumbo.
It’s true that ideology shapes the mumbo-jumbo these folk spout off to whip people up against their enemies. But does the mumbo-jumbo they spout off really make a difference?
Does it really make a difference whether the Ukrainians are called capitalists or whether they are called, for example, Nazis? It seems pretty same old same old regardless.
You make a decent point about attacking poor outclasses as well. For reasons of both nationalism and utility.
I think with a lot of these communist countries their operation quickly became different from what sparked their revolution.
Basically because neither socialism (as Marx defined it) nor communism are politically viable systems given both how capitalism ended up working, and how people work when a huge amount of political and economic power is on the table.
Of course, how often is it otherwise with a revolution? America and...any other examples?
I think we largely agree about neither socialism nor communism being viable, forget "politically", they don't work economically either.
But I think the communist countries pretty much did go down the path the revolutionaries themselves intended, even if it didn't match the rhetoric they were spouting. People who set up dictatorships lie about what they intend to do, news at 11.
largely agree about neither socialism nor communism being viable
So long as you don't omit Sarcastro's qualifier - "as Marx defined it."
But I have a sneaking suspicion you're going to switch to, "as American conservatives define it," as soon as you can.
Since they define the governments of many prosperous, democratic, and quite viable countries that way I'm careful about this agreement.
Don't work economically is incoherent since Marx's insight was you cannot disaggregate the two systems. Also what bernard said - your definition of socialism is as partisan and overbroad as your definition of fascism.
I think the communist countries pretty much did go down the path the revolutionaries themselves intended, even if it didn’t match the rhetoric they were spouting
Of course you do! It's your telepathy and you found bad faith in people you don't like yet again! For fuck's sake, Brett, you gotta see this pattern.
Maybe you're right, but not being a telepath I cannot tell. Though I will note that who does the revolution and who ends up on top are not always the same.
Sarcastr0, things turned ugly enough, fast enough, that if the revolutionaries hadn't intended ugly, they had plenty of time to change course. But they didn't.
To quote Orwell's O'Brien: "One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power."
By now, seeing where that road always ends, you really think people set out down it planning some other destination? People establish dictatorships to be dictators. Period.
if the revolutionaries hadn’t intended ugly, they had plenty of time to change course.
I have not done a study on revolution, but my gut says that stuff moves quite fast in a revolution.
Basically, once again you have an overly narrow point of view. I'm saying there are lots of ways a revolution can go that end up in authoritarianism, from a power struggle to a 'utopia justifies the means' to necessity to it being the plan all along to just falling into it bit by bit.
Nothing is ever all one thing.
"The thing to remember about Communism is that it had nothing to do with Marx,"
Why would we want to remember something that was false?
It's true that Marx was wrong about where his revolution would happen. He was wrong about basically everything he was remotely novel about, so that's hardly shocking.
He was wrong about basically everything he was remotely novel about
He was wrong much more than he was right, but so were all the enlightenment thinkers. Quit trying to simplify the world.
He was right about economics being an important and neglected part of enlightenment political philosophy discourse.
He was right that the 'great man' theory of history was at best reductive and most often wrong.
He was right about the flight to wages even below subsistence by management, and the absence of true free exchange of labor for value.
He was right about the above meaning free market capitalism had some fundamental flaws that would eventually destabilize society.
You come up with a couple things he was right about, but hardly novel about, and then go onto things he actually was wrong about.
No society anywhere followed the path he predicted. To wages below subsistence.
It was all novel at the time.
I concur with you that his post-Capitalism analysis was incredibly dumb, though no dumber than most of the social projections his contemporaries had.
But he was also quite willing to contemplate and even advocate for blood. Marx was a bad guy.
But not a dumb guy.
His Capitalism analysis was incredibly dumb, too. The labor theory of value? Moronic! It directly leads to absurd conclusions, like inefficient workers being more valuable than efficient ones.
But, yeah, a bad guy, but not a dumb guy. The world would possibly be a better place today if he'd been a dumb bad guy, he'd have been less influential.
My chief point here is to dismiss the absurd idea that he wasn't responsible for Communism. He was at least as responsible for it as Hubbard was responsible for today's Scientology.
The author is careful to avoid calling Hamas a communist movement, and he's right to do so. Hamas is no more a communist movement than was ISIS. The autocratic Arab states' governments that remain in power after the Arab Spring are anything but communist. So is Iran, currently number 1 or 2 on our worst enemies list. So is Turkey, still a NATO ally. All of these have terrible, atrocious human rights records, and some have committed well-documented genocides (so have we by the way). So why can't we have a Victims Of Islam Day? Too many votes, too many close diplomatic relations, and too much money at stake would be my guess.
I don't condone any of that, I am not an apologist for those states, for Stalinism, or for Islam at its worst. At the risk of even more what-about-ism I also offer the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire for consideration. How about a Victims Of Capitalism Day?
Mistakes by Misguided Idealists Day.
"In a 2012 post"
Bravo! Volokh.com is finally fully working again AND all the old comments are back as well. I missed the presence of those great comment threads.