The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
November 7 as Victims of Communism Day - 2025
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 over time 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 avoi such 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, as is the case this year. 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 am aware of.
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 severe repression, the starvation of children, and a massive refugee crisis—the biggest in the history of the Western hemisphere. Recent events in Venezuela also highlight the dangers of "democratic socialism." While most communist regimes have taken power by force, ignorance about the history of communism and socialism could enable such movements to take power by democratic means and then eventually shut down democracy, as has actually happened in Venezuela. "Democratic socialism" - which has many of the same flaws as the authoritarian version is gaining in popularity on the political left in the US, as shown by the recent election of a prominent member of the movement as mayor of New York. Most of his supporters likely have little understanding of the dangers of his ideology. Victims of Communism Day can help combat such ignorance.
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 had an excellent critique of such Soviet "nostalgia" in a 2021 Reason article.
Victims of Communism Day is also a good time to remember our duty to help those victims, or at least avoid impeding their escape from oppression. Among other things, it is unjust to deport migrants fleeing oppressive Marxist dictatorships, like those Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela, as the Trump Administration seeks to do to hundreds of thousands who entered the US legally under the CHNV program. If some on the left tend to ignore the evils of socialism, many on the nationalist right have been exacerbating the plight of its victims.
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
Woah, I cant believe the Democrats allow this sort of hate speech against them.
Celebration of this day has been canceled in NYC.
LOL. I was wondering how far down the thread the first comment confusing socialism with communism would be. Surpise! Top of the list.
"the end goal of seizing the means of production" sounds kinda communisty
Enlighten us, O Wise One, what the difference between socialism and communism is, and why the differences between the two should matter to a libertarian seeking to preserve liberty.
Heck, let's throw fascism and Nazism in the mix, for good measure!
Further enlighten us, O Wise One, why all people to the right of Lenin could be thrown into the "Nazi" bucket as Democrats do, without any distinctions to be made between libertarians, American conservatives, and actual Nazis -- do you seriously expect us to believe that these three things are exactly alike?
One can be a socialist without being a communist. But Mamdani is a self-proclaimed Marxist, and one cannot be a Marxist without being a communist.
Where’s thst Marxist declaration? Can we see it?
Here you go!
Did you actually read that?
Sure. Did you? If so, which parts are false?
I guess his capitalist bona fides are solid. Apparently, he was charging $13 a beer at his victory party.
"I arrived thinking everything would be free, only to be charged $13 for a Bud Light..." one progressive campaign worker said.
The more obvious problem is that November 7 is too close to November 11, which is the day when much of the western world remembers the end of World War I.
Lets celebrate victims of communism by letting more communists into the country so they can vote for communism like in NYC, and we can all be equally oppressed.
This isn’t going to become a thing because of wankers like this guy who are unclear on the definition and just want another attack angle on the eervil Dems.
We’re rather spoiled for choice on “attack angles” criticizing the increasingly radical and violent left. And therein lies the real problem, not criticism but leftist political violence.
Ilya Somin defecated in the graves of all victims of communism when he endorsed Kamala Harris. Now he seeks to profit off of them.
So do you think Harris is Stalin or more of a Mao?
More of a Konstantin Chernenko, if you insist on an analogy.
Or, get this, Harris isn't like that at all.
Maybe she's a pretty boring Dem and not everyone is a commie.
Today in trolling: Gaslight0 acts like he doesn't understand what "if" means.
Take it up with Causter.
He wasn't the one who posited a false dichotomy.
I was illustrating how silly Causter's tying Harris to the victims of communism was.
Which leads to a trinary choice:
Do you agree with Causter's comment?
Were you too dumb to understand my comment?
Or were you just doing some contrarian playing around?
Today in trolling: Gaslight0 performs outrage when someone responds to his contrarian playing around.
Well, little communist girl, that probably depends on how much she's had to drink and the last thing she manages to remember being told to say from one of her handlers.
Somin ought to get it that his take is no longer free of partisan entanglements. Maybe free it up, by changing to, "Victims of Ideology and Opportunism Day," Do it that way, and you get a click-bait payoff with an even more mind-boggling number of attributable victims.
Anyone who wants to argue with Professor Somin on this should first read all 8 volumes (so far) of Solzhenitsyn’s “The Red Wheel” which documents, in minute detail, the Russian Revolution. Then you might begin to see the monstrous evil that is this ‘thing’ we call communism. After that, try, I dare you, to read “The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression.” To those who say that communism is good in theory but bad in practice, I say show me where this has ever scaled up to anything other than death, poverty, and famine.
Communism scaled up faster and more efficiently than anything else in history, by transforming Tsarist Russia into the Soviet Union between the end of WW I and the start of WW II. It's transformation from basket case to world power happened so quickly it shocked and terrified other nations. However equivocally achieved, that result enabled the world-historical beneficial outcome of defeat for Nazi Germany.
If we intend clear-eyed critique, we cannot afford to condemn disfavored ideologies for egregious outcomes, with an eye to misunderstand more-favored ideologies as examples of relative perfection. Communism's rivals have better histories, but too-often-terrifying histories nevertheless.
"more efficiently"
Does your balance sheet there include the gulag and Holodomor?
" that result enabled the world-historical beneficial outcome of defeat for Nazi Germany"
n.b. they had a little help from their friends. The Red Army moved in Studebaker trucks, and those T-34 engine blocks came from aluminum smelted in America, for a couple of examples.
Does anyone have GDP growth rates over time by country? Britain and America during the industrial revolution, Soviets in the 1930's, etc? My googling came up short.
The pre-war scale-up was not a result of American help. The reverse, actually.
But of course the rapid advance between the wars was assisted by being positioned to adopt technology which already existed elsewhere. In America, comparably rapid progress was precluded by having to invent technology to pace each advance.
For someone paying attention, that comparison points up something worth noticing. Attribution of American prosperity to its capitalistic system may be misleading. In typical historical reckoning, (which I think partly misleading in this case), capitalism developed approximately contemporaneously with a separate systemic advance, industrialism.
The comparative experience of the American and Soviet economies cautions us to at least notice that a communistic command economy, and a capitalistic free-market economy, did not differ dramatically in their capacity to manage industrialism. Industrialism triggered economic advance in both. But fully developed industrialism made economic advance more explosive in the non-capitalist system. During the early 20th century, that seems to have remained true even though the two economic systems employed differing means to mobilize and organize the various inputs to the industrial process.
In short, economic critics who too readily endorse capitalism, while failing to sufficiently notice the industrialism component at work alongside capitalism, risk going far afield with their conclusions.
Do not take any of this to be an endorsement by me of communism. I am pro-capitalist, and enthusiastically so. I do believe it would work more beneficially for most of the American populace if it were less consolidated and less corporate. That would open more opportunities for individual Americans to act as capitalists on their own, or to work in influential positions near the top of more numerous capitalistic enterprises.
"The pre-war scale-up was not a result of American help"
Ummmm...:
"Albert Kahn is synonymous with the automobile industry and the growth of Detroit. His Detroit-based firm, founded in 1895, designed such iconic buildings as the Packard Plant, the Fisher Building, and Temple Beth-El, in addition to countless industrial structures in Michigan and across the United States.
But in the spring of 1929, on the eve of the Great Depression, Albert Kahn Associates was contracted to design the Stalingrad Tractor Plant, the first facility of its kind in the Soviet Union. That project led to a much larger contract for the firm to consult on industrial construction across the Soviet Union and the establishment of a satellite design office in Moscow from 1930 to 1932.
One could argue that without Albert Kahn, the Soviet Union would have struggled to execute its ambitious building projects. At the very least, it would have taken longer to become an industrial powerhouse."
Me: "But of course the rapid advance between the wars was assisted by being positioned to adopt technology which already existed elsewhere."
"Do not take any of this to be an endorsement by me of communism. I am pro-capitalist, and enthusiastically so. I do believe it would work more beneficially for most of the American populace if it were less consolidated and less corporate. That would open more opportunities for individual Americans to act as capitalists on their own, or to work in influential positions near the top of more numerous capitalistic enterprises."
So I take it you will be open to significant deregulation, then? As an example, there used to be a dozen or so major car companies operating in the US ... until FDR pulled the biggest three and asked them to create regulations for the industry. Ford refused to participate, and they barely managed to survive the bureaucratic regulatory mess that killed all the companies except the Big Three.
Nowadays, if you want to start a car company, you either have to limit the number of cars you make to 50/year to avoid the regulatory mess, or you have to have a billion dollars to pay the lawyers needed to navigate that mess.
Similarly, doctors have had to merge their practices in recent years because of ObamaCare regulation -- and even then, it's hard to keep up with the paperwork requirements!
So, yeah, if you want a Capitalist system more friendly to little people being Capitalist, we really ought to carefully consider what regulations we could safely do without!
You still need to factor in Holodomor and gulags into your calculations.
Without those inclusions, it's like admiring the Nazis for their autobauns, their own rapid industrialization, and their snazzy uniforms, all while ignoring how they murdered 12 million "undesirables", half of whom were Jews.
And to add insult to injury, you don't observe that for all of Capitalism's sins, they managed to industrialize just fine without the extreme death tolls and outright destruction of nature that the Soviets (and Communists in general) resorted to in order to "establish" modernity and "prosperity".
And let's not forget that one of the things that led to the rejection of Communism was the sudden stop at a random grocery store by Gorbechav to test whether the full stores he'd been seeing were just propagandistic "show-off" things to impress Soviet leadership -- and finding that no, the prosperity he saw was real, and decades of Communism did not produce that kind of prosperity.
epsilon given — In some respects you are arguing to the choir. I am pro-capitalist. In other respects you are mistaken. About half of what you insist for capitalist virtue is untrue.
For instance, the Soviets reputedly did a terrible job guarding their environment. I have not been there, but I am willing to take that as true. The Soviets were comprehensive corner cutters, so why not the same for their environment?
But whatever environmental damage the Soviets inflicted pales by comparison to the environmental toll racked up by global capitalism. Capitalism has comprehensively degraded the ecology of almost every acre outside the former Soviet Union. Even wilderness reserves formally protected in the U.S. have suffered local extinctions of animal species, and mass die-offs of plant communities up to and including entire forests. Turns out, when policy starts killing whole ecological systems, politically created boundaries around set-asides barely count.
Why would that not have happened? If as you suppose global capitalism is so much more dynamic and successful at mobilizing resources and creating wealth, why—given capitalism's similarly dynamic resistance to either self-constraint, or regulation—would capitalism not have proved similarly overbearing as an agent of environmental destruction? And so it has.
Communism may have brought environmental catastrophe to parts of Asia. Capitalism has outstripped communism to visit environmental catastrophe everywhere else. If you give that pattern any thought, you might conclude it stems back to something I remarked above—the similarity of reliance on industrialism in both systems. That similarity has included in both systems opposition to environmental protections, as unwanted drags on industrial efficiency.
Rivalry between the systems has also made their destructive tendencies harder to control. That is not a problem attributable to either system alone. It is a problem attributable to heedless rivalry, of the kind you practice in your advocacy.
"But whatever environmental damage the Soviets inflicted pales by comparison to the environmental toll racked up by global capitalism"
citation needed, as they say.
Citation not needed, except by folks indulging an inner compulsion to defend every aspect of capitalist outcome, including its self-evident blunders.
But what the hell, I'll give you two citations, either of which signifies separately more environmental destruction than the Soviets ever inflicted world-wide. Your job ought to be to figure out what these signify, and if they seem obscure to you, why you do not know better:
1. The extinction of the ivory billed woodpecker.
2. Invention of glyphosate, and the industrial–agricultural business model it enabled.
Because I doubt you will do your job, here are explanations:
1. The ivory billed woodpecker was an extraordinary dietary specialist. It could survive only by exploiting recently-dead mature trees, in temperate-to-sub-tropical wetlands habitats. After a tree had been dead more than a few years, ivory bills could no longer find their required foods in its rotting wood. They needed instead trees with the bark just about to rot off. That kept them moving. They had to find another recently-dead mature tree, and then another. They needed a continuous supply of newly-dead mature trees.
What that means ecologically is that the survival of ivory bills provided an index to an otherwise easy-to-overlook—and indispensable—ecological requirement. It is a requirement for all plant and animal communities—the requirement for the entire half of ecological activity which comprises replacement and decay, instead of growth and thriving.
Capitalist exploitation of nature attunes itself readily to renewal, growth, and harvests of natural produce at maturity. Capitalist exploitation shuns as economically useless and time consuming that second indispensable half of the process—the death, decay, and replacement part.
For ecological relations among organisms in the overall biome, the capitalist distinction is worse than meaningless; it is destructive. Too many of the organisms, with their endless permutations of interactions, depend for capacity to forage and reproduce on continuing contributions from both sides of the process—both the growth side, and the decay and replacement side. The ivory bills died out after capitalist exploitation of mature trees deprived them of newly rotting ones.
It should be needless to say that a great deal of other ecological damage followed, but not so obviously as the disappearance of so charismatic a species as the ivory bill. You do not, however, have to be an ecological scientist to see that the wetlands forest habitats formerly inhabited by ivory bills are not regenerating themselves anymore. You do have to be old enough to remember what was there before. And you do have to live long enough to notice, and try to notice the changes. With regard to the ivory bill, not many people are so old, and fewer are trying. But of course other similar dramas of ecological derangement are beginning all the time, for anyone who cares to notice.
Processes like those which killed off ivory bill habitat are of course equally at work in other ecosystems subject to capitalist management. Which, because of the vigor and extent of capitalist enterprise, means essentially everywhere.
2. The glyphosate business model. This one is less subtle, and thus requires less insight, but more explanation,
Glyphosate is an out-and-out killer. Not a killer of humans medically, maybe (not when used as directed, they say), but a killer of ecological systems, and everything in them.
Compared to pesticides it replaced, glyphosate kills more generally—almost universally. That is why industrially-minded farmers—the ones who manage farming as an extractive industry—replaced their pesticides with the glyphosate farming model. It simply kills everything in a field except a crop genetically engineered to withstand glyphosate.
Not just plants. Use of glyphosate kills the birds, the reptiles, the insects, the mammals, the molluscs—basically everything which depends directly or indirectly on the plants glyphosate targets—which are virtually all of them.
That method has proved so economically efficient that it spread on pure free-market principles to encompass a gigantic area of the lower 48 states. It is an area in its aggregate equal to the full area encompassed by about ten of the most agriculturally productive states, including California. No policy review ever gave a go-ahead for any of that. Doing it was taken for granted as capitalist prerogative.
Which raises a question. Suppose there had been a policy review in advance, with a forthright set of facts put before the Congress. Suppose the case was put this way: Give us the go-ahead, and we can assure you crop yield increases amounting to very large fractions of what is already produced, perhaps doubling yields in some cases, and always providing double-digit percentage increases. In exchange, we need an environmental policy which approves killing annually everything alive in an area encompassing something like 20% of the entire United States, with license to increase that area further after this policy demonstrates how well it works.
I doubt that during an openly-public controversy, even this Congress would have approved that as policy. But who knows? I think that is insane as policy, so that likely means Trump would demand it, and this Congress would do it.
No former Congress would have done it. But here that tacit policy is, already at work to that extent, courtesy of free market capitalism, liberally empowered.
That policy will prove more dangerous and unworkable than liberal use of DDT ever was. Even after that happens, any attempt to get rid of the glyphosate agricultural economy—or an equivalent relying on whatever replaces glyphosate when natural resistance renders it useless—will be called regulatory overreach, at least by capitalist ideologues.
Your claim is not 'the environment hasn't suffered in capitalist countries', it is 'pales by comparison'.
So, Three Mile Island vs, Chernobyl? Or to pick one tidbit from the list: "only 8% of wastewater is fully treated before being returned to waterways. Obsolete and inefficient water treatment facilities, as well as a lack of funding, have caused heavy pollution, and has also resulted in waterborne disease spread, such as an outbreak of cholera spread by the Moskva River in 1995."
I'm trying to recall the last cholera outbreak in the US or Europe.
Of course, you continue to embarrass yourself when you talk about glyphosate, completely misunderstanding its effects and benefits.
Oh, and citation was very much needed, and you utterly failed to do it. Saying that a random bird in the U.S. went extinct — extinction, of course, is natural — tells you nothing about which system was better at protecting the environment. Unless you want to assert that there were no extinctions in the communist bloc.
Please, Nieporent, detail my misunderstandings about glyphosate.
Its effectiveness allows the use of less herbicide overall, and increases agricultural yield per acre; this efficiency allows more output from a smaller amount of cultivated land, thus decreasing the effects of farming on the environment.
Nieporent — Alternatively, more yield per acre makes formerly marginal land economic to cultivate, and thus increases the area of land dedicated to farming. Worse, the marginal lands previously left uncultivated had been ecological refuge areas, which disappeared when cultivation became more economically efficient per acre.
You can pick your explanation. I doubt either of us has access to data to say reliably which of those effects predominate. Seems evident that case-by-case choices would be made, within a framework of many other economic variables.
To help bystanders judge your credibility, why not say what experience you bring to the discussion. Have you ever:
1. Lived on a farm for at least a year or more?
2. Done work to plant, cultivate, and harvest crops?
3. Practiced dairy farming?
4. Raised animals for meat?
5. Cleared un-farmed land to bring it under cultivation?
6. Set up and maintained irrigation systems for farming?
7. Made a rural farming community your principal place of residence?
8. Built farm buildings, or at least helped to build them?
9. Interviewed farmers about what they do, and about their views on agricultural economics?
I do not think you know what you are talking about.
Also, claims that farming is less disruptive ecologically now than previously would not earn you trust among ornithologists, entomologists, or plant biologists who study wild plants. You might find support among biologists working on genetic engineering to apply to novel agricultural practices still to come.
"Alternatively, more yield per acre makes formerly marginal land economic to cultivate, and thus increases the area of land dedicated to farming."
...and thus produce more food.
It's simple to reduce the ecological impact of farming - stop farming.
If you aren't willing to stop eating, though, then you should be focused on some mix of A)producing food at the smallest impact per unit of food or B)reducing the amount of food needed, e.g. the population.
If the demand (population) is constant, producing more per acre will make marginal acreage less attractive to farm. That's why so many farms in Appalachia were abandoned early in the 1900's - that kind of hardscrabble farming was something you only did when you didn't have any other options. The rising productivity of modern farming gave people other options.
Er, no not even slightly. “Capitalism” is a name given to an economic system which deploys substantial amounts of private capital in the production process. “Capitalism” is another word for “Wealth.” Thus when a society has accumulated sufficient wealth in its agricultural sector, it has the means to deploy that surplus on other things - like industry. That is how British and American industrialisation got going. The British made use of their head start by plundering huge quantities of wealth from India which juiced the supply of capital. Capitalism is associated with industrialisation because industry requires capital.
Russia under the Tsars was pursuing the same path very successfully after the emancipation of the serfs and was the fastest growing economy in Europe in the decades leading up to WW1. But it was totally wrecked by the war.
Soviet industrialisation was not built on accumulated capital from agriculture - they managed to destroy 50 years of Russian agricultural advance within their first 15 years. Instead they simply diverted resources from agriculture to industry. Hence the starvation.
Soviet industrial growth was not particularly impressive per capita. It was lower than Germany’s - itself hamstrung by Nazi autarchical foolishness. Soviet industrial production increased more than Germany’s only in toto because they had more people. Not per capita.
In short the Soviet industrial miracle is a myth. Absent WW1 there’s every reason to believe that the Tsarist regime would have industrialised faster than the Soviets did, but without the agricultural disaster.
The comparative experience of the American and Soviet economies cautions us to at least notice that a communistic command economy, and a capitalistic free-market economy, did not differ dramatically in their capacity to manage industrialism.
Except the US was producing more than everyone else put together in almost every category. And after the war, the USSR had to devote 40% of its economy to just make a facade of keeping up with the US during the cold war.
Tsar Alexander's armies helped defeat Napoleon - was it thanks to Tsarism? I wouldn't say so, and neither should you say that the Soviet Army's defeat of the National Socialists was thanks to Communism.
In fact, the Soviets were hobbled by Stalin's bad leadership, first in purging many perfectly good military officers in the 1930s, then in failing to foresee the invasion in 1941. The Soviets won in spite of Communism, not because of it.
"neither should you say that the Soviet Army's defeat of the National Socialists was thanks to Communism"
The USSR did rapidly industrialize under Stalin. Some of the motivation for the Holodomor was to export Ukrainian grain to get foreign exchange to build e.g. steel mills. Lot's of gulag slave labor building canals and railroads and so on as well.
In the alternative history where the Tsars stay in power, what would WWII have looked like? I haven't a clue.
If the Holodomor's purpose was to get more grain, it failed.
It got more grain to export, to get foreign exchange, to spend building steel mills (et al.). It succeeded in that sense. That exported grain was seized from Ukrainian farmers, who starved as a result. So from a 'build steel mills' POV, success. From a 'don't let people starve', no to good.
(there were other factors - forcing collective farming and bad weather)
The sarcastic slogan about USSR agriculture was "70 years of bad harvests."
Maybe the US should have considered killing off its farmers, then we could have industrialized even faster!
Command economies are super good at short term ramp ups.
Also chess, I would say. The Soviets created a banger chess system. At the cost of dehumanization and misery, of course.
"In the alternative history where the Tsars stay in power, what would WWII have looked like? I haven't a clue."
The Tsars were out of power *before* the Communist takeover.
Early in 1917 the noncommunist Kerensky government replaced the Tsar. A few months later the Bolsheviks overthrew Kerensky.
So yours is a fallacy of the false alternative.
I don't see what you're getting at.
When considering alternative histories, assuming the Tsars stayed in power is just as much a legitimate way to consider alternative history (and LE Modesitt has a book which postulates just that), as is asking what would have happened had Kerensky managed to thwart Lenin's coup.
Either way, Communists wouldn't have taken power. Admittedly, either one would have been different in its own way, but either one would have been significantly different from Lenin taking power.
I understood Absaroka to be positing a choice between Tsarism and Communism, which I think is incorrect because by the time of the Bolshevik takeover the Tsars had already been overthrown.
Right. The communists and their apologists like to pretend that at least the communists overthrew the Tzars. No, the overthrew the democratic reformers who'd overthrown the Tzars.
This leads to a lot of people forgetting that there actually was something between the Tzars and the communists, and it was better than either.
It might have been better morally but it was a total cluster multiplication. It threw the Russian Army into complete chaos with soldiers councils and did squat for the economy.
The Bolsheviks were a Revolution is misnamed. It was essentially a coup d’etat, and we remember it only because it was successful (as a coup.) There had already been half a dozen attempted coups by left and right by the time February turned into Ictober. The Kerensky regime was doomed ab initio
More 'Stalin drives industrialization at warp speed 9' vs 'whatever other government doesn't'.
That industrialization paid off in building T-34's, so that's good for the USSR/Russia. But OTOH no Stalin maybe means no purge of the officer corps, no stationing troops right up at the border, no refusing to acknowledge warning signs of Barbarossa.
A non-communist govt, monarchy or republic, might mean German industrialists not scared enough of Bolshevism to back Hitler, or a 1937 alliance with the Allies, including Poland.
A change that major just makes things completely unpredictable, IMHO.
At the prompting of asinine if actual communist theory, or at the prompting of a murderous dictator?
Hard to say, because there is no data on how non-totalitarian communism works. My guess is it isn't possible. People being what they are, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" requires compulsion.
In Marxist theory, admittedly glossed over swiftly, “Communism” is the Kingdom of Heaven utopian end stage of Socialism, after the Dictatorship of the Proletariat has been run long enough to squeeze out bourgeois and capitalist sentiments, and to weed out incorrigibles. At that point coercion is unnecessary as people will behave in a socialist manner without it.
Humans are socially conditioned, their minds are blank states. There is no innate behavioural architecture to overcome.
Pol Pot had a good try at squeezing out incorrect socialisation but even that radical effect failed.
The problem as always is external influences. Which is why the Soviet Union failed. External influences. The Revolution will only be successful if it is conducted worldwide.
I think you need a different species. Ants, bees, termites, something like that 🙂
This remark just shows how deeply embedded you are in bourgeois social conditioning. As The Lightbringer reminded us only recently, you are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts.
And the facts are, once again :
"Humans are socially conditioned, their minds are blank states. There is no innate behavioural architecture to overcome."
Getting humans to behave like ants and bees has NOTHING to do with species. It is simply a matter of correct social conditioning. This is one of those basic "facts" that you may not deny.
Let us hope that you are re-educatable. It would be a shame if you had to be eradicated instead.
Marx didn’t think you needed any coercion. Or reprogramming. Or any government. It’s one of the many ways he’s hilariously wrong.
He only started talking bloody revolution in his latter days after Russia was all peasanty and not European enough.
"Marx didn’t think you needed any coercion"
Not my area of expertise, but the font of all knowledge quotes Marx as writing "their [the Communist's] ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions." (and the following paragraphs).
That seems at odds with what you say.
Looks like I must stand corrected.
If you got some time this weekend, I'd commend the 4 lectures on Marx from this 2010 yale series on political moral philosophy:
This one, 2/4, goes into Marx's idea for the evolution of the state away from capitalism. It's just...so silly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rS3-_s-ghbk&list=PL2FD48CE33DFBEA7E&index=10
What's more, the Soviets started as one of the Axis powers allied with Nazi Germany, kicking off WWII with their invasion and partitioning of Poland.
Margrave — Your sense of WW II military history on the Eastern Front seems selectively brief. That history did not end in 1941. As a corrective I suggest, Stalingrad: The Fateful Siege: 1942-1943.
Antony Beevor
Amazon.com
What distinctive contribution did the Communist Party make to the Russian victory? Perhaps sending to the gulag many real or alleged dissenters, such as Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn who was serving in the Soviet army?
"During the war, Solzhenitsyn served as the commander of a sound-ranging battery in the Red Army,[18] was involved in major action at the front, and was twice decorated. He was awarded the Order of the Red Star on 8 July 1944 for sound-ranging two German artillery batteries and adjusting counterbattery fire onto them, resulting in their destruction....
"In February 1945, while serving in East Prussia, Solzhenitsyn was arrested by SMERSH. The cause of the arrest were nineteen months of correspondence with a friend, Nikolai Vitkevich, in which they criticized the Soviet state and the conduct of the war by Joseph Stalin...
"Solzhenitsyn was convicted of anti-Soviet propaganda under Article 58, paragraph 10 of the Soviet criminal code, and of "founding a hostile organization" under paragraph 11. Solzhenitsyn was taken to the Lubyanka prison in Moscow, where he was interrogated. On 9 May 1945, it was announced that Germany had surrendered and all of Moscow broke out in celebrations with fireworks and searchlights illuminating the sky to celebrate the victory in the Great Patriotic War. From his cell in the Lubyanka, Solzhenitsyn remembered: "Above the muzzle of our window, and from all the other cells of the Lubyanka, and from all the windows of the Moscow prisons, we too, former prisoners of war and former front-line soldiers, watched the Moscow heavens, patterned with fireworks and crisscrossed with beams of searchlights. There was no rejoicing in our cells and no hugs and no kisses for us. That victory was not ours." On 7 July 1945, he was sentenced in his absence by Special Council of the NKVD to an eight-year term in a labour camp. This was the usual sentence for most crimes under Article 58 at the time."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandr_Solzhenitsyn
I sometimes mock Sartre's philosophy as "As Descartes and others said, we can never truly know real-world items like a chair, only our mental image of them. However, that mental image itself is a real thing, and we do indeed know that directly. [Thousands of pages later] and therefore nobody should read anything but what the Communist Party permits."
Stephen, there is a Steve Lathrop who is a very well know lawyer in Omaha. Any chance this is you?
kmcarlson1952 — I have been to Omaha only briefly, while passing through. With the exception of Warren Buffet, I remain unaware of anyone who lives there.
Other people named Steve Lathrop have sometimes come to my attention. A hospital system I rely upon has another person with that name in its records, so the hospital's practice to demand birth dates along with names is a wise precaution in our cases.
After I once chanced to appear on national television many decades ago, I got an unbidden letter from a Stephen Lathrop (as I style myself) who included in his return address a middle initial, which chanced also to be the same as mine. Turned out, we shared a birth year as well. That was striking enough that I somewhat followed his life story for years afterward, but he is sadly long-dead today.
The television episode from 1965 was, at least as recently as a year ago, still living, as it were. If it has not disappeared since, you might be able to catch a glimpse of me at age 18, by accessing YouTube and googling, "To Tell the Truth," together with the name, "Schollander."
On that show, l somewhat successfully impersonated Schollander, whom I also knew as a college classmate, and fellow swimming team member. At swimming, I was not in Schollander's class. I felt privileged to stand on the same podium, albeit on an imposter's podium, instead of an Olympic one.
A socialist gets elected to NYC major and suddenly the right is screaming about communists. Because we can already see how social democracies in Europe have descended into communism--The UK, Irleland, Netherlands, Germany, France, etc. Not to mention those stalwarts of Marxism, Australia and New Zealand.
I basically agree with your broader point, but in fairness to Ilya, he's been wanting a "Victims of Communism Day" for a loooong time. I'm just glad he's showing some willingness to move off of May 1.
Still waiting for you to enlighten us on the difference between the two, and why libertarians, who are consistently equated to Nazis by people who think there is a difference, should care.
You could look it up.
Libertarians are equated to Nazis?
First, you are assuming I have done absolutely no research or reading in the topic, rather than go deep down a few interesting rabbit holes. "Human Action" by Ludwig von Mises in particular makes a solid case that any attempt to establish socialism will necessarily end with concentration camps or gulags and accompanying mass execution.
As for libertarians being equated to Nazis, what the heck do you think "horseshoe theory" is? By the magic of magical thinking, taking libertarianism to its extreme always produces Nazis -- and this weird jump is made via the labeling of everything non-Communist as "Right Wing" -- Nazism is what you get when you take libertarianim to its extreme.
And the funny thing about all this? When you compare what Nazis did to what Communists did, they are virtually indistinguishable.
If you're using the *Mises* definition of socialism, then you sure gotta leave Nazis out of it. And the Italian fascists.
Dude was kind of a reactionary.
You can talk horseshoe theory all you want, you don't get to lump Nazis and socialists together. Or add in Japan, as you somehow did?
When you compare what Nazis did to what Communists did, they are virtually indistinguishable.
Reductive revisions of history so you can lump all your villains together is ironically a Soviet tactic.
Please enlighten me: how does Mises' definition of socialism exclude Nazis, Fascists, and yes, Japanese Imperialists?
Because, like the Communists, they all held that society was more important than any individual, and thus any individual could be sacrificed for any reason, or no reason at all.
And about that "reductionism" -- perhaps it wouldn't have happened had I not read "The Black Book of Communism". Ever since then, I have been unable to tell the difference, except possibly by recognizing whether the names involved were Russian or German.
I think you're misunderstanding horseshoe theory.
You've got a 2d chart of authoritarianism on one scale, and 'left-right' on the other, and horseshoe theory posits that actual governing parties tend to exist on a horseshoe shaped line in that 2d field, with liberty at its highest in the middle of the left-right spectrum, and converging on maximal authoritarianism at the extremes of left or right.
On your typical Nolan chart, Libertarianism is in the upper corner, sitting midway between left and right, because as you become less authoritarian, being "left" or "right" ceases to be relevant. On this chart, the opening of the horseshoe faces down.
Horseshoe theory might argue that you can't reach that upper corner in a real political system, real governments being constrained to the horseshoe, but it does place libertarianism towards the freer end of things.
Social Democracy is not a form of democratic socialism. Social Democracy is a system with a broadly free market economic system coupled with a generous welfare system.
Do you really get a lot of people saying 'communism is good in theory but bad in practice?' Outside of like college dorm room bull sessions I mean.
OK Sarcastr0 that's a fair cop (as Monty Python has said). You're right, I don't hear it any more. It kind of died out after the 1990 fall of the USSR and the Warsaw Pact countries. Oddly, though, I never heard it in a college dorm. But then again, come to think of it, I never lived in a dorm. (audience applause and laughter ensues)
It was before my time, but I would not argue left used to be low-key apologists for Stalin's Russia.
Those types are pretty old nowadays.
Anybody who says that, frankly, has a very limited exposure to theory. Because communism is only good in theory if you limit yourself to Marxist and adjacent theories. Which renders it a tautology.
It would seem reasonable to change it to Victims of Authoritarianism Day and broaden it to include the victims of fascism, the Holocaust and so many more. That might gain you some support on the left, but I suspect it would drive away a lot of support from the right.
Nah, that wouldn't garner any support from the Left at all. They are still in denial that the Soviets and other Communists did horrendous things, and they would never want to come to terms with the reality that when you compare actions, policies, and atrocities between Nazis, Fascists, Imperialists (eg Japan), Soviets, Chicoms, and pretty much every other Communist regime, it pretty much becomes impossible to tell any of them apart from any of the others.
And what's more, do you really think the people who celebrate the deaths of young girls in a flash flood, who celebrate the murder of a political opponent and ask who should be next, who call for their political opponents to be re-educated if possible and elliminated if not, would suddenly gain some self-awareness, because we start calling them Nazis and Communists, instead of just Communists? They are too busy calling libertarians and Constitutionalists Nazis to justify killing them.
You’re a very confused person.
Am I, though?
The Democrats in Virginin just elected Jay Jones for AG, who bragged that if he were in a room with his political opponent, Stalin, and Mao and had only two bullets, his political opponent would get both every time, and then followed up with the suggetion that it would be good if that opponent's children were murdered in front of their mother, because perhaps that would cause them to rethink some of their political positions.
And this kind of rhetoric isn't particularly rare among Democrats.
Am I supposed to look at this and say "Democrats are hunky dory, they wouldn't hurt a fly!"?
One of the lessons we should have taken from Mein Kampf, of all things, is "when someone tells you who they are and what they want to do, believe them". That's what I'm doing here. A lot of people here, though, want me to believe them over my "lying eyes" and ignore the Communism that has so thoroughly soaked the Democrat Party.
He did not "brag" that. It's a longstanding joke to humorously express one's distaste for a figure, though a tasteless one that one would think any politician would be sensible enough to avoid. ("If you're confronted with Hitler, Stain, and George Steinbrenner, but you only have two bullets, what do you do?" "Shoot Steinbrenner, twice." Back when hate for Steinbrenner was a thing.)
[Citation needed.]
Citation needed? Very well: hundreds of thousands of Democrats celebrated the murder of Charlie Kirk and immediately started making suggestions of who should be next.
I'd be a lot more sanguine about Jay Jones's "jokes" if Democrats hadn't responded to the murder of a political opponent in this manner.
Um, that's not a citation; that's you just elaborating on the thing you pulled out of your ass in the first place.
I have no objection to a victim of Communism day if we also have a victim of Capitalism day.
Let's pour one out for all the people who died fat and happy because capitalism snatched them from the jaws of penury and oppression.
Don't be a jingoist. Plenty have starved under capitalism.
I'm drawing a bit of a blank on anything comparable to Mao's great famine or the Holomodor in modern times. These were peacetime famines directly resulting from political decisions, not drought or blight or whatever.
There were wartime famines in India and Holland during WWII, and the Potato Famine in Ireland, and while England contributed to two of those they had proximate causes other than malfeasance of a capitalist government, and there was a bit of a war on for two of them.
I'm not comparing capitalism to communism. I'm taking issue specifically with the idea that captitalism is only upside.
Even as GDP and the stock market do great, capitalism is full of needless deaths. And we can look back to our history to see that when you go more laissez faire it gets a lot worse for the working class.
Capitalism spreads out it's privations across the country; that doesn't mean they don't exist.
Doesn't mean we shouldn't be capitalist either, but we should have clear eyes about our systems and their flaws.
Is the glass half empty or half full?
The old joke is that democracy is a terrible form of government; its only saving grace is that it's better - a lot better - than all the others. The same is true of capitalism.
No system is pure, and there are plenty of ways to improve…if you can look critically at your own deal and not see it as some existential competition of philosophies.
Sure. But I dunno if the best implementation of communism beats even a pretty bad implementation of capitalism. N.b. this is partly because communism seems to kinda require the dictatorship thing, and dictatorships or any political flavor generally have bad outcomes.
Human rights aren't just morally right, they are good for the economy as well.
Oh sure! Don't mistake my resistance to blind market worship for advocacy of communism.
It doesn't work; it's a bad idea; it will never work, and it'll likely and in an oppressive hellscape. Don't try it.
But otoh look at epsilon below, who keeps pushing the false binary. Never mind we're in furious agreement and he's just too eager to have that argument to see it.
I will ask this question here, too: why is it that no one ever says "Capitalism has warts too!" when we are talking about Nazi atrocities?
Communist atrocities are at best as bad as Nazi ones. Yet, when we talk about Communist atrocities, we all of the sudden have to examine Capitalist ones for their warts.
Naziism is a narrower thing.
Meanwhile look how far you are stretching socialism/communism/Marxism.
Rival systems bring one another to mind. Naziism isn’t in that set,
How in the world is Nazism "more narrow" than Communism? Nazis did everything Communists did, and vice versa.
Is there something we could do to keep Nazis out of power, that wouldn't work against Communists, or vice versa? If not, what is the point of observing they are "different"?
Let's do a little thought exercise, shall we?
Let's focus on the United States, the most Capitalist of all Capitalist countries. The US has been around for 250 years, so let's be as harsh on the US as possible and tally all the needless deaths during this 250 year period to the needless deaths of Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, Jacobin France (just for fun), Castro's Cuba, the Chinese Communists, the Communist Vietnamese, the Communist Koreans, and so forth.
We should even make a chart of all these, just so we can compare them easier!
Heck, I'm feeling very generous: the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights are the essence of Capitalism, and I'm not even going to ask you to remove the deaths caused by the US Government in violation of America's ideals as expressed by our Founding Documents!
I'm not sure what argument you think I've made, but I'm not saying communism is good, or better than capitalism.
You do seem to be having a very good time, though!
And I see below you did the usual switch to making it about Democrats being just like Stalin.
Silly man.
I'm sick and tired of the continuous, decades old sleight of hand that Communists have pushed, trying to hide Communist atrocities by saying "Capitalists did bad things too!"
Well, yes, yes they did, but to try to conflate the bad things that happen under Capitalism (a huge portion of which is the result of the human condition, and thus happens in Communist societies as much as they happen under Capitalist ones, if not more so) with the abject death, torture, and pure horror of Communists that produce entire cultures that literally have CPTSD as a whole, is absolutely ridiculous.
And if I'm objecting to you, it's because you're pushing this very argument. If not, maybe you need to make it a little clearer that you're being sarcastic, because you are deep in Poe's Law territory.
You're so sick and tired of the argument, you begin to see it where it's not being made!
Though since you're calling Democrats communists, I could see why you get a lot of pushback since that's some know-nothing shit.
Democrats across the country just barely celebrated electing a Communist as Mayor for New York City, and you're trying to claim that it's wrong to call Democrats Communists?
Particularly when Democrats look for every hint of Nazism they can in even the most obscure of Republicans, no matter how strained, so they could call Republicans "Nazis"?
Give me a break!
Quick question: Why is it that whenever we talk about Nazi atrocities, no one ever says "sure, Nazis were bad, but Free Market Capitalism has its warts too!"?
Because that's how you're coming across here to me. Communists, at best, are as evil as Nazis. They are probably be more evil, but I think it's safer to say that both maximized evil to the point of being indistinguishable.
You seem to have some serious protean definition issues going here.
If it’s broad enough to encompass Mandami it’s too broad to be as evil as Naziism.
Come back when you can keep to a consistent definition. As it is you seem committed only to partisanship. How tedious.
Perhaps I'm a little too brain-addled to come up with definitions right now, so perhaps you could help me out. Give me a definition of Socialism, and explain to me (using small words, perhaps) why Nazism, and Communism are excluded by that definition.
For bonus points, tell me why the "Democratic Socialism" everyone says Mamdani embraces is better and safer than Communism, and explain to me why, even though it's better, it still failed in Venezuela.
Capitalism doesn't have large events to compare with the deaths caused by the policies of men like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. Rather this a long history where people have been sacrificed for profits. the Irish Famine, the clearing of the Scottish highlands, exploration of workers in factories, the displacement of aboriginal people to access their resources, and slavery. If you want to be fair you need to recognize the warts of both systems.
If we want to be even more fair, we can stop and realize that Capitalism ended slavery (and did so, in part, because the free North was far more economically successful than the slave South), that the "exploitation" of factory workers happened because it was better than subsistance farming, the Irish Famine was caused in part by anti-capitalist policies put in place by England to keep the Irish from rebelling, etc.
Furthermore, for every death Capitalism has "caused" by pursuing profits, I can guarantee the Communists have done something far worse in pursuit of Revolution -- things like arresting striking factory workers and liquidating the leaders, or sending in coal miners to deal with a nuclear reactor meltdown, or taking a family's food and seed grain for export, or sentencing an engineer to death (as a saboteur of the Revolution) because he was late delivering a prototype fighter plane, only to have the death sentence waived if he'd promise to help design the first MiG.
Sure, both systems have warts, but it seems that everyone tries to blow Capitalist warts out of proportion in their efforts to draw attention away from the leprous lesions that cover the Communist.
Capitalist societies have an objectively lower rate of such events than any other kind of societies. The only arguable exceptions are the social democracies that live under the wing of US military protection, and they have a substantially lower growth rate than more capitalist societies. ("The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.")
Chattel slavery
Because of the millions killed in capitalist purges and gulags.........
Millions were literally enslaved, and their children born into slavery, in this very country.
What did that have to do with capitalism? I don't want to No True Scotsman this discussion, but what you describe was embraced and defended in the area of the country that least embraced capitalism, and indeed used to rhetorically defend slavery by claiming that the Northern capitalist system actually treated workers worse.
Anything that considers the Russian Revolution, the Chinese Great Leap Forward, and the Khmer Rouge as all the same thing is too ridiculous to be taken seriously.
A fortiori any/all of that with European social democracy.
Sure, they aren't the same thing, if you're splitting hairs, but it's all inspired by the exact same fundamental belief that's at the core of Communism in particular, and Totalitarianism in general:
In pursuit of utopia, there is no lie that is so great, nor atrocity so horrible, no grab for power so shortsided, that it should not be used to get and maintain as much power as you could possibly get.
When you fully understand this, it becomes virtually impossible to tell the different manifestations of Communism and Socialism from each other, and that includes, but certainly not limited to Nazism, Fascism, Japanese Imperialism, and yes, the Democrat Party.
"and yes, the Democrat Party"
Gee, I dunno. Fetterman or Gluesenkamp Perez seem pretty far from Stalin to me. Farther than Taylor Taylor Greene, in fact.
Pretendent Biden's Party orchestrated an event to entrap as many of his political opponents as possible; Democrats in government pushed social media to censor dissent (and they did so until Elon Musk bought Twitter); high level Democrats (including Hillary Clinton) regularly suggest they need to "re-educate" their opponents; Democrats celebrate political murder and even suggest that there need to be more; Democrats celebrate the election of a Marxist as Mayor of our biggest city ... and I'm supposed to take comfort that there's a couple of Democrats who aren't like that ... or be afraid that there's a Republican or two that is like that?
So you're just delusional. Gotcha.
Was what I saw from Democrats after Charlie Kirk delusional?
Gaslighting only works when the intended victim has been isolated from the regular world. Once we receive outside confirmation that the world really is different from the lies that are being pushed, the lies no longer have any effect.
Apparently, yes.
Professor Somin, May 1 has already been rescued from its Communist taint. It is the feast day of St. Joseph the Worker, and has been since 1955.
https://www.ncregister.com/cna/the-story-behind-the-feast-of-st-joseph-the-worker
I also notice that St. Joseph, in addition to being a patron saint of carpenters (obviously), is the patron of attorneys (and for Commonwealth readers, the patron of barristers and solicitors, too).
https://yearofstjoseph.org/patronages/
Works for me. Declaring March 25th a Victims of Capitalism Day would work for me too. March 25, 1911, was the date of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire in NYC. Garment workers in the building at the time of the fire were primarily immigrant women who were underpaid and easily replaceable. Because these workers were locked inside the building, 146 of them died after jumping out of windows, died of the flames, or died of smoke inhalation. Need I go on? Is this a matter of who's committed atrocities? Or just a question of degree?
Sure, this is a great idea! These largely accidental deaths and many like it -- which happened both before and after 1911, and happened in both Communist countries and Capitalist ones, and which very likely inspired new building codes and engineering best practices, should obviously be considered morally equivalent to Nazi Concentration camps, Soviet gulags, Ukrainian Holodomor, Japanese Rape of Nanking, the Great Leap Forward, and using Ugyers as involuntary organ donors (because why wait for someone to die when you have perfectly healthy dissidents who are wasting oxygen?).
I cannot think of a more perfect way to show how dastardly and evil Capitalism is under the United States, compared to the rest of the world!
Some tankies argue the Holodomor was an accident as well. Missing the point that it doesn't matter.
Did you just argue that the Nazis and Japanese were communists?
Sending in soldiers to extract every last grain of wheat from a kulak family, and executing them if they attempt to hide something so their family could have something to eat, is a funny kind of "accident".
As for Nazis and Imperial Japanese, I don't call them Communists, but I recognize them as totalitarian societies that are impossible to distinguish from each other, when you have spent too much time reading about their atrocities.
Wow. You don't think the Soviets and Chinese have had industrial accidents that killed way more than 146 people?
The redeeming feature of democratic socialism is that, at least in theory, the democratic socialists say they're committed to free elections, conducted in an atmosphere of free expression, in such a way that if even if democratic socialists take power they're committed (again, in theory) to leave power if the voters later reject them. Thus (in theory), democratic socialists will have an incentive not to attempt full-on commie style repression, lest the voters fire them.
In Venezuela, they seem to have dropped the "free" part of their elections.
Totalitarianism of any flavor is bad. Being a nice guy or gal in either Stalingrad or Berlin turned out pretty bad.
I'll channel Sarc: being a coal miner in a capitalistic system wasn't always great (although lots better than in the USSR).
<3
The funny thing is, though -- and this is what really gets my goat -- is how everyone agrees that German, Italian, and Japanese totalitarianism is bad, but when it comes to Communism or Socialism, we suddenly have to navel-gaze and take a moment to remember our Capitalistic sins, as if they are somehow visible when put next to Communist ones.
Now, I don't mind this kind of navel-gazing when the purpose of examining Capitalist atrocities is trying to figure out what we can do to keep them from happening again -- but just as it doesn't make sense to discuss American or British atrocities and "atrocities" when examining Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, or Imperial Japan, it doesn't make sense to discuss them when discussing Communist atrocities.
This was supposed to be a reply to Daddyhill and Sarcastr0, concerning the comment starting with:
"Works for me. Declaring March 25th a Victims of Capitalism Day would work for me too. March 25, 1911, was the date of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire in NYC."
Ok, I have just re-read this thread, and decided I needed to concede this point: maybe, if they took a page out of the Chicom's safey practices, and just surrounded the building with nets to catch people who jump out of buildings, no one would have died.
Or, alternatively, the US should have done the right and proper thing to improve the lives of those immigrants, instead of create fire codes and other pro-active measures: they should have sent tens of millions of Americans to gulags, and liquidated millions of them.
Or maybe I should concede that somehow, the deaths of 146 women caused by a greedy, stupid, careless business owner is somehow the moral equivalent, if only in degree, of a State that sends secret police out at night to gather people and send them into literal, and not figurative, slavery, if not outright execute them because they are deemed useless or too corrupt.
Perhaps I'm wrong about this: perhaps these women would have been better off had the Cheka taken them to the basement of the Kremlin to be shot in the back of their head and have their blood drained into a concrete trench designed for that purpose. Indeed, in America they died alone in a horrible fire. If only they could have died along with their husbands and children, instead!
But then, if this fire is morally equivalent in kind, if not in degree, to the horrors of Communism, how are we not morally equivalent to Nazis as well -- who did the exact same things?
Seriously, what is wrong with you people?!? How in the world is anything that the United States in particular, and Capitalist countries in general, the moral equivalent of what either Nazis or Communists have done?!?
You call the American Democratic Party communist and then ask how is anything in America the moral equivalent of communism.
Done with you. Can’t have a conversation with an inconsistent lunatic.
I call Democrats Communist for all sorts of reasons: they celebrate electing a Communist Mayor in New York City. They celebrate the murder of their opponents for disagreeing with them, and call for the re-education or murder of pretty much everyone they disagree with. They celebrate the murder of a CEO. They are consistently endorsed by the United States Communist Party. They have prominant members, both historically and to this day, who proudly visited Communist countries and returned with glowing reviews. They push for censorship of those they disagree with. They push government agencies beyond the limits of the Constitution to punish their political opponents. They seek to nationalize as much as they can, and many of them want to seize the means of production. 1960s and 1970s Communist terrorists -- including Bill Ayres, whose home was the place Barak Obama launched his Presidential Campaign -- have prominent positions in the Democrat Party. Democrats pardon Communist terrorists, and even celebrate them.
How much more must I observe before I can safely conclude that yes, Democrats might just be Communists? Democrats will link Nazism to Republicans for far less -- and yet a Democrat can have a literal Nazi tattoo and Democrats don't even blink an eye. If Democrats can do this to Republicans without me being crazy, why is it so crazy that I conclude Democrats are literally Communist?
Is there anything that the word "they" can't do? Other than tell the truth, apparently?
Oh, sure. "They" told us for four years that Pretendent Biden was "sharp as a tack" and that any videos suggesting otherwise were "cheap fakes". It's funny how these same people still expect us to trust them to tell the truth, because at this point, they should have absolutely no credibility left.
Who can forget "they" (every Dem in Congress) claimed in PPACA that they can regulate our individual economic decisions?
From the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act:
EFFECTS ON THE NATIONAL ECONOMY AND INTERSTATE COMMERCE -The effects described in this paragraph are the following:
(A) The requirement regulates activity that is commercial and economic in nature: economic and financial decisions about how and when health care is paid for, and when health insurance is purchased.
Judge Gladys Kessler (Mead v. Holder):
For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that Congress had a rational basis for its conclusion that the aggregate of individual decisions not to purchase health insurance substantially affects the national health insurance market. Consequently, Congress was acting within the bounds of its Commerce Clause power when it enacted § 1501
Justice Ginsberg (NFIB):
First, Congress has the power to regulate economic activities “that substantially affect interstate commerce.” Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U. S. 1, 17 (2005). This capacious power extends even to local activities that, viewed in the aggregate, have a substantial impact on interstate commerce. See ibid. See also Wickard, 317 U. S., at 125 (“[E]ven if appellee’s activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce.”
(and later)
Given these far-reaching effects on interstate commerce, the decision to forgo insurance is hardly inconsequential or equivalent to “doing nothing,” ante, at 20; it is, instead, an economic decision Congress has the authority to address under the Commerce Clause.
PS. Democrats literally calling for re-education camps and murder of their political opponents is, for all practical purposes, the moral equivalent of Communism. And Nazism. And Fascism. For those who are keeping score.
Just because the Constitution and a well-armed public keeps them from acting out their Communist ideals doesn't make them any less Communist.
Unhinged nonsense
It's always unhinged nonsense up to the moment it happens and then it's, "Why so surprised? We said we'd do this!"
LOL Brett are you going to defend this guy?
Why are you ignoring or downplaying the huge display of bloodlust Democrats gave us the day Charlie Kirk was murdered, just a few weeks ago?
"Literally"!
The Democrat reaction on social media to Charlie Kirk's murder has made it very difficult to take Democrat rhetoric figuratively.
"The Democrat reaction" manages to be both ungrammatical and fictional.
I respect the need to address the horrors here, but I question combining everything into one day. Juneteenth is tied to slavery.
We don't, as someone suggests, try to have a day to address every grave wrong our society has done. For instance, Indigenous Peoples' Day is concerned about Native Americans.
Take the Great Leap Forward. I am not sure the problem there was purely "communist." The reference to "totalitarian control" is telling. Communism does not require that. This is not a defense of the ideology. It has been shown to encourage totalitarian control.
I do wonder about too blithely connecting the two. What would happen if communism were applied more democratically? Some would argue that it is impossible. I am not a political specialist. I do know these terms are flexible, if not as flexible as some comments.
Howard Zinn in "Declarations of Independence" has a chapter on communism and anticommunism. He notes some sympathy for the "ideal of communism" vs. how it was applied. It was applied in ways that violated what many people thought it should mean.
The line between "socialism" and "communism" is somewhat vague. The true difference appears to be a matter of scope and approach. A smallish income tax in the 1890s was denounced as "communistic," and things like Social Security were similarly rejected as "socialized medicine."
Communist horrors show the dangers of ideological overkill. I respect the need to remember. But, Stalin and Pol Pot were not horror shows merely because of an economic ideology.
"The reference to "totalitarian control" is telling. Communism does not require that."
Can you flesh that out at, say, a nation-state level[1]? Has that even been tried? I thought 'dictatorship of the proletariat' and 'seize the means of production' were kind of central to the concept.
[1]I'm not sure it even works at a hunter-gatherer level. You believe in communism, so you share the deer you got today with Fred. Tomorrow Fred decides he wants to keep his deer just for his family. What happens then in non-totalitarian communism?
I do not think communism as a whole turns on a few turns of phrase. Anyway, the people can determine that it is appropriate to nationalize property. The procedures used can have certain limits.
The fourth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles notes:
32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. 33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all 34 that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35 and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.
Britannica defines "communism" thusly:
communism, political and economic doctrine that aims to replace private property and a profit-based economy with public ownership and communal control of at least the major means of production (e.g., mines, mills, and factories) and the natural resources of a society. Communism is thus a form of socialism—a higher and more advanced form, according to its advocates. Exactly how communism differs from socialism has long been a matter of debate, but the distinction rests largely on the communists’ adherence to the revolutionary socialism of Karl Marx.
How that occurs is open to debate & can entail a range of options, especially once we move past mere theory to imperfect application. As to real-life application, as Howard Zinn argues, it is questionable if it has truly "been tried" on a large scale.
We can probably see examples in small-scale communities, including self-created utopian societies, and perhaps certain non-industrial societies like hunter/gather and small agricultural societies.
Um, the kibbutzim essentially failed as a model.
If something can't work on a small scale, why would one think it should even be tried on a large scale, let alone that it could work?
Eh, communism works on a small scale. Like a few families or so. Plenty of little religious communities and whatnot worked fine and continue to work fine.
I don't think that's very material to the discussion here. It's not even a matter of scaling; states are different in kind from smaller communities.
Voluntary communism works on a small scale when the population is all altruistic - as kin groups and co-religionists may well be. My wife and I are an example :-).
As soon as you have one freeloader, it breaks. If you compel them to work, it's no longer voluntary. If you compel the not-freeloaders to feed the freeloader, it's no longer voluntary. If the not-freeloaders continue to support the freeloader, people being what they are, you end up with more freeloaders.
Yep - we are on the same page. When you have a small enough group you can have personal trust relationships, you can keep a communistic system going.
Once it gets impersonal enough for free riding to go unnoticed, you're gonna need an enforcement system. And then you got a positive feedback loop so it's only a matter of time till it's off to the authoritarian races.
"Voluntary communism works on a small scale when the population is all altruistic - as kin groups and co-religionists may well be. My wife and I are an example :-)."
Yup. That's why social safety nets work best when they are provided at the extended family level rather than a larger level. People will voluntarily produce extra, take on extra shifts, etc. to pay for a cousin's operation, but will avoid taxes that pay for strangers' operations.
Social safety nets aren't communism.
'We can care for the poor by having their extended family produce extra' is just nonsense.
lol. It’s not surprising that you think the foundation of our society is nonsense. You get that parents feed children by producing more than they consume, right?
Even a hunter-gatherer society is going to have some troublemakers. This "one freeloader" business suggests that communism requires total purity. Doesn't quite work that way.
It sets up an idea. Jesus set forth an ideal that, at some point, became unworkable. You couldn't just keep on giving away everything. But Christianity isn't worthless as a religion because the idealistic principles eventually were adapted to form realistic rules. The same thing is going to result for any ideology.
Communism isn't going to merely rest on pure voluntarism. There are going to be various pressures, including emotional, to conform. I'm not saying the overall concept works, at least large scale, but "one freeloader" is not going to break it.
That's why I referenced kibbutzim; those are little religious communities and whatnot, and do not continue to work fine.
The question was whether it was ever tried at all.
I'm not suggesting it should be tried -- utopian societies historically generally failed. At best, the model might work small scale.
The biblical example, to the extent it was based on a true story (the author of Acts gets various facts wrong), was done in a belief that they were living in the end times. So it was somewhat time-barred.
As to why it was tried, there were various reasons why it was tried, especially in the historical context involved. Misguided that they might be.
What would happen if communism were applied more democratically?
Why do you ask? Would you prefer to be forced to work for a master who has been democratically imposed on you versus one who holds power over you in some dictatorship?
The evils of communism included antidemocratic practices such as killing of dissidents that would not have happened in many cases if democratic principles were in place.
If communism was applied democratically, it is harder to see that people will be "forced to work for a master," though some of the rhetoric on this thread (including what Democrats supposedly support) makes that phrase somewhat opaque.
At the risk of stating the obvious, the communist regime in the Soviet Union was awful. The only valuable thing it ever accomplished was grinding up the cream of the Wermacht on the Eastern front. In the United States, communism -- the real thing -- has almost no adherents, and no prospect of getting noticeable numbers of them.
What is the point of having a "Your undesirable system sucks" day focused on this particular undesirable system?
Having a historical memory of past atrocities - especially atrocities linked to horrible ideas - has its points.
https://www.ushmm.org/
If today "nobody is saying," etc., then let's keep it that way. Let's not go back to the 1930s when a disappointingly large number of Americans embraced murderous totalitarian ideologies, which certainly included Communism.
The best way not to go from "nobody is saying" to "what's so bad about Communism?" is to have a good historical memory.
Fine. There's always room for a new museum. I'm sure Ilya could pitch the idea to some tech bro and get funding.
There already *is* a Victims of Communism Museum in Washington, D. C. I discovered this through exhausting, labor-intensive research which involved typing "communism museum" into a search engine.
https://vocmuseum.org/
Then our work is done.
If Professor Somin’s logic is valid, the day Charles Ponzi’s scheme collapsed ought to be called “victims of postal coupons” day, and should serve to remind us all that postal coupons are inherently evil and cause bad things to happen.