Единственным средством самозащиты является, в этих условиях, стачка голода. ГПУ отвечает на нее насильственным кормлением, либо предоставляет свободу умирать. Сотни оппозиционеров, русских и иностранных, были за эти годы расстреляны, погибли от голодовок или прибегли к самоубийству. На протяжении 12 лет власть десятки раз оповещала мир об окончательном искоренении оппозиции. Но во время “чистки” в последние месяцы 1935 г. и первой половине 1936 г. снова исключены были сотни тысяч членов партии, в том числе несколько десятков тысяч “троцкистов”. Наиболее активные были немедленно же арестованы, разбросаны по тюрьмам и концентрационным лагерям. В отношении остальных Сталин через “Правду” открыто предписал местным органам не давать им работы. В стране, где единственным работодателем является государство, эта мера означает медленную голодную смерть. Старый принцип: кто не работает, тот не ест, заменен новым: кто не повинуется, тот не ест. Сколько именно большевиков исключено, арестовано, истреблено начиная с 1923 г., когда открылась эра бонапартизма, мы узнаем, когда развернем архивы политической полиции Сталина. Сколько их остается в подполье, обнаружится, когда начнется крушение бюрократии.

It’s just as much in the interests of all to immediately deport the contagious visitor/immigrant, or quarantine them until the disease runs its course, or just plain shoot them and incinerate the carcass, or do what South Africa did to a friend of mine once and treat them but then bill them.

And let God sort them out?

Mark Field:
A friend of mine got sick while traveling in England. He had to be hospitalized, but the English system treated him well and without any charge. They apparently do this for anyone, at least those lawfully in the country.I should add that such a policy only makes sense. If a vistor/immigrant has a communicable disease, it’s in the interests of all of us to treat it.

It’s just as much in the interests of all to immediately deport the contagious visitor/immigrant, or quarantine them until the disease runs its course, or just plain shoot them and incinerate the carcass, or do what South Africa did to a friend of mine once and treat them but then bill them. What’s in the interests of all is to prevent the disease’s spread to others at minimum expense to others. Treatment doesn’t always serve that interest, at least without something done by the recipient to offset that expense to others.

And on the subject of contemporary Trotskyites, I know that author Eric Flint self-identifies as one. He’s also saccharinely idealistic about America, so make of that what you will.

Interesting point. I think some rights do end at national borders. Foreigners have no right to vote in American elections, to take a simple example. So it is certainly possible to declare that Americans have rights, (or should have certain rights) including possibly a right to health care, as a function of being Americans and hence part of our social compact.

A friend of mine got sick while traveling in England. He had to be hospitalized, but the English system treated him well and without any charge. They apparently do this for anyone, at least those lawfully in the country.

I should add that such a policy only makes sense. If a vistor/immigrant has a communicable disease, it’s in the interests of all of us to treat it.

If there’s a right to health care, it doesn’t end at national borders, correct? So anybody who doesn’t support financing health care for everybody in the world supports letting people die in the name of ideology, by that logic.

Interesting point. I think some rights do end at national borders. Foreigners have no right to vote in American elections, to take a simple example. So it is certainly possible to declare that Americans have rights, (or should have certain rights) including possibly a right to health care, as a function of being Americans and hence part of our social compact.

That doesn’t help those elsewhere, of course. I’d say whatever one’s views of their rights, there are practical, political, and resource constraints that make it unrealistic to think that we – the US – can extend health care worldwide. This is in contrast to our domestic situation. On a practical level, I do approve in general of efforts, especially public health projects, to improve conditions in poor countries.

Mark Field: I can’t be anti-semetic. Some of my best friends are polysemic.

:-)

How ’bout ya knock off the anti-semetic comments, eh?

I can’t be anti-semetic. Some of my best friends are polysemic.

… we have evidence from other sources that Trotsky didn’t give a rodent’s hindquarters about non-Communist opponents of the regime.

No doubt. That’s why I was careful to talk about what the passage meant “taken in isolation.”

RPT: My Google is free. I did the search and it came up null. Amazing. Will try it?

Results 1 – 10 of about 906,000 for “republican health care plan”

You fail again.

RPT: Arrow:Do you really live in a world where there is nothing tax-supported? Do you drive on public roads? Go to or send your kids to school? This health care exceptionalism is consistently lame. You are in favor of “government thievery” for things you like, and raise this objection only for things you don’t like. Where were the principled tea bag persons yesterday when the “government run health care enforcers” swooped down on the person in D.C who had a heart attack? Why didn’t they fight for his “freedom” from the oppression of “government run health care”? Did they pay for the services rendered? Probably not. What would you do?

Ok, fine public works help provide infrastructure that enables me to increase my wealth. But how much is enough for the government to take from me and give to others? How much is ever enough for you socialist scumbag thieves?

Doc Merlin: Why not embrace the Libertarian-Darwinism of this philosophy; if you don’t have the money (for whatever reason) to pay for your medical expenses, then die?

The reason to not embrace it publically is cowardice. You tend to get ostracized for supporting such morally correct but unpopular propositions.

bgates: And the Republican plan is?Buy a subscription to Google and look them up yourself.

My Google is free. I did the search and it came up null. Amazing. Will try it?

ArrowSmith:
Except your ideology involves taking a bigger % of someone’s paycheck to fund someone elses’ “right to health care”. You should at least admit that you are a thief.

Arrow:

Do you really live in a world where there is nothing tax-supported? Do you drive on public roads? Go to or send your kids to school? This health care exceptionalism is consistently lame. You are in favor of “government thievery” for things you like, and raise this objection only for things you don’t like. Where were the principled tea bag persons yesterday when the “government run health care enforcers” swooped down on the person in D.C who had a heart attack? Why didn’t they fight for his “freedom” from the oppression of “government run health care”? Did they pay for the services rendered? Probably not. What would you do?

They ran a candidate for Mayor of Detroit. Then wrote an article about how few people actually voted for Bing (like 12% of the eligible voters). I was hoping they would reply to my response that in the middle of the biggest crisis in Detroit history that they collected significantly less that 1% of the eligible voters. I didn’t have the heart to tell them that Chuck Daly would have outpolled their candidate if someone had started a write in ballot.

byomtov: Try health care for another example. I’ve seen lots of comments here that deny that there can be any right to health care. OK. That means you only get health care if you can pay for it (through insurance or directly) or as charity. Otherwise no appendectomy for you, because after all, anything else involves “coercion.” Can’t have that, say the libertarians. So letting people die in the name of ideology is in fact something some libertarians are willing to do.

If there’s a right to health care, it doesn’t end at national borders, correct? So anybody who doesn’t support financing health care for everybody in the world supports letting people die in the name of ideology, by that logic.

If that’s the best you can do you’ve proven my point.

byomtovOtherwise no appendectomy for you, because after all, anything else involves “coercion.” Can’t have that, say the libertarians. So letting people die in the name of ideology is in fact something some libertarians are willing to do.

Except your ideology involves taking a bigger % of someone’s paycheck to fund someone elses’ “right to health care”. You should at least admit that you are a thief.

Nothing “wrong” with it. But I’m not willing to say that people should starve if private charity proves inadequate.

Try health care for another example. I’ve seen lots of comments here that deny that there can be any right to health care. OK. That means you only get health care if you can pay for it (through insurance or directly) or as charity. Otherwise no appendectomy for you, because after all, anything else involves “coercion.” Can’t have that, say the libertarians. So letting people die in the name of ideology is in fact something some libertarians are willing to do.

A basic introductory reading list:

*Case, John and Rosemary C.R. Taylor. Co-ops, Communes and Collectives: Experiments in Social Change in the 1960s and 1970s. (New York: Pantheon Books, 1979).

*Dolgoff, Sam, ed. The Anarchist Collectives: Workers’ Self-Management in the Spanish Revolution, 1936-1939. (New York: Free Life Editions, 1974).

*Erasmus, Charles J. In Search of the Common Good: Utopian Experiments Past and Future. (New York: The Free Press, 1977).

*Hine, Robert V. California’s Utopian Colonies. (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1983 ed.).

*Melville, Keith. Communes in the Counter Culture: Origins, Theories, Styles of Life. (New York: Morrow Quill, 1972).

*Morrison, Roy. We Build the Road as We Travel. (Philadelphis, PA: New Society Publishers, 1991).

*Nordhoff, Charles. The Communistic Societies of the United States. (New York: Schocken Books, 1965 [1875]).

*Pitzer, Donald E., ed. America’s Communal Utopias. (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1997).

As to the role and significance of utopian thought and imagination to this enterprise, see here: http://ratiojuris.blogspot.com/2008/07/utopian-thought-imagination-part-1.html and
here: http://ratiojuris.blogspot.com/2009/01/utopian-thought-imagination-part-2.html

Chad:Russian language is full of proverbs and maxims, and ‘Who does not work, does not eat’ phrase was very often heard in the Soviet Union.
This post has some background.
I doubt Trotsky knew or cared about 8th Century Chinese monastic traditions.

I’m also sure Trotsky didn’t know or care about them. I was just pointing out that the proverb or maxim was much older than the Soviet Union or Marxist theories; and secondarily wondering whether Trotsky and other communists perceived it more as a communist principle, or a Russian principle, or something more ancient and universally accepted.

rpt: Why not embrace the Libertarian-Darwinism of this philosophy; if you don’t have the money (for whatever reason) to pay for your medical expenses, then die?

Because its not libertarian. It would be unlibertarian to try to stop people from giving charity to whoever they want to.

The Brits found out, years ago, that taking an hour or so everyday for afternoon tea, and eating those little finger sandwiches, are the secret to a long and healthy lifestyle.

Buy a subscription to Google and look them up yourself.

Part one (of five, ~35 mins total)
http://tinyurl.com/otkhzh

Sorry I wasn’t clear. What I meant to imply was that obviously there are times in capitalist economies when some people find it impossible to get work. Under (admittedly extreme) libertarian views those people would be allowed to starve.

You don’t need to have central control of the economy to have systems in place that try to make sure that doesn’t happen. But those who oppose any sort of government social insurance programs presumably believe that such systems are immoral, and should not exist.

If this is true, could you please explain why life expectancy in the U.K. is almost a year longer than it is in the U.S.?

An excellent question. I suppose among nearly 300 million Americans, there’s bound to be somebody, but I’d be surprised if you can find significant numbers or many people of influence. Does anyone know whether Trotsky has more fans than Lyndon LaRouche?