Economist Bryan Caplan has an interesting post summarizing three competing explanation for the oppressive nature of socialist regimes:
Lord Acton and F.A. Hayek have inspired the two most popular explanations for the crimes of actually-existing socialism. While Acton never lived to see socialists gain power, their behavior seems to perfectly illustrate his aphorism that, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” For all their idealism, even socialists will do bad things if left unchecked. Hayek, with the benefit of hindsight, suggested a slightly different explanation: Under socialism, “the worst get on top.” On this theory, the idealistic founders of socialism were gradually pushed out by brutal cynics as their movement’s power increased.
[Eugen] Richter’s novel [Pictures of the Socialist Future] advances a very different explanation for socialism’s “moral decay”: The movement was born bad. While the early socialists were indeed “idealists,” their ideal was totalitarian. Their overriding goals were to engineer a new society and a New Socialist Man. If this meant treating workers like slaves – depriving them of the freedom to choose their occupation or location, forbidding them to quit, splitting up families without their consent, and imposing draconian punishments on dissenters – so be it.
The three theories aren’t mutually exclusive. All of them may have some validity. Still, the evidence supports “born bad” much more than the others. Acton and Hayek’s theories both imply that there should be a significant time lag between the time when the socialists take power and the start of really serious oppression. Even if absolute power corrupts absolutely, it doesn’t do so immediately. Similarly, it takes time for the “idealistic founders” to be replaced by “brutal cynics.”
In actual fact, however, massive oppression usually begins almost immediately after socialist regimes take over. The Cheka (forerunner of the KGB), the Gulag system, and other major instruments of socialist oppression in the USSR were all established by the communists in 1918, just weeks or months after they seized power. During the same period, they also began their first and extremely brutal effort to collectivize agriculture – which ended up in the murder and starvation of millions of peasants. Unlike some of their other oppressive measures, collectivization (the early Bolshevik policy that cost the most lives) could not be rationalized as a mere response to the exigencies of the Russian Civil War; indeed, it actually impeded the Bolshevik war effort. All this was done by idealists like Lenin and Trotsky, not by their more “cynical” successors. Moreover, these idealists had not yet had much time to be corrupted by power. Richard Pipes’ book Russia Under the Bolshevik Regime has a thorough account of the massive oppression of the first years of communism in the USSR.
Russia was not an exception. The early years of socialism in China, Yugoslavia, Cuba, and other countries were comparably brutal. Indeed, when the idealists were eventually replaced by “brutal cynics” less committed to their ideology, the amount of oppression often declined. Relative cynics like Brezhnev and Deng Xiaoping turned out to be a huge improvement over Lenin, Stalin, and Mao – the first and more idealistic generation of socialist leaders. The former “only” killed people by the tens of thousands instead of the tens of millions, and some of them (notably Deng) implemented market-based economic reforms that greatly eased the plight of the people.
Why does any of this matter today? After all, most full-blown socialist regimes have disappeared. And in any case, so long as we know that socialism leads to massive oppression, does it really matter why?
One reason why these competing theories matter is that we want to better understand the past. But a more pressing reason is that the debate over socialism isn’t over. Some still argue that the system could work if it were headed by more idealistic leaders or was more democratic. The validity of the “born bad” theory stands the idealism argument on its head. More idealistic leadership leads to more oppression in socialist regimes, not less. “Born bad” also weakens the democracy argument. If socialism inherently requires massive coercion and repression, any socialist system is unlikely to stay democratic for long.
UPDATE: To avoid confusion, I should emphasize that, as in all my posts on socialism, I use the term to mean government ownership and planning of all or most of the economy. So capitalist societies with a relatively large welfare state (e.g. – Sweden) are not relevant counterexamples.
PersonFromPorlock says:
I remember, fifty years ago, twitting my communist roommate that he was against company towns and for company countries. He didn’t see the relevance.
April 6, 2010, 4:21 pmArrowSmith says:
You are forgetting the most brutal regime on the planet(North Korea) has not lessened in intensity for decades. So indeed brutal repression can go on forever. NK is like a living test case for Orwell’s Oceania.
April 6, 2010, 4:21 pmS says:
Interesting, why is it you don’t call this communism or totalitarianism, instead of socialism?
April 6, 2010, 4:22 pmColin says:
I had a similar question to S. It seems like you almost defined socialism in such a strict fashion that it intentionally precludes counter-examples.
April 6, 2010, 4:24 pmIlya Somin says:
Interesting, why is it you don’t call this communism or totalitarianism, instead of socialism?
Because the relevant attribute that leads to the oppression (government control of the econommy) is not limited to the specifically communist variant of socialism. As for totalitarianism, the key point at issue is in fact whether a socialist regime will necessarily become totalitarian. So limiting the argument to totalitarianism begs the question.
April 6, 2010, 4:25 pmArrowSmith says:
Ilya – we all know that capitalist societies can easily become totalitarian. In fact, I’m sure history is littered with examples.
April 6, 2010, 4:28 pmS says:
Thanks, but, further clarification, what is the ‘real world’ variant of socialism that involves total government control of the economy, but is not communism?
April 6, 2010, 4:29 pmArrowSmith says:
Besides all this totalitarian-talk is just a red herring to scare people about Obama’s wondrous plan for America!
April 6, 2010, 4:29 pmAngus says:
My god, the only people still flogging the dead horse of socialism are right-wingers. I think a 10/10 rule is about right. Less than 10% of conservatives understand what socialism means, and less than 10% of left-wingers actually support socialism.
April 6, 2010, 4:33 pmArrowSmith says:
Most people supports socialism under other guises – “progressivism”, “we need to have a robust safety net”, “unions need special protection”, etc….
April 6, 2010, 4:40 pmMenshevik says:
Ilya’s timeframe for the collectivization policies that resulted in millions of deaths is incorrect. It was only the collectivization begun under Stalin that resulted in deaths on this scale. This was not instituted until 1928, several years after the end of the Russian Civil War.
April 6, 2010, 4:45 pmMark Field says:
Since the update expressly disclaims that as “socialism”, I guess you fall into the first 10%.
April 6, 2010, 4:46 pmHouston Lawyer says:
In order to provide the cradle to grave safety net that Leftists are so fond of, you have to limit people’s rights to live as they choose. The more “benefits” you wish to provide, the more the limitations on their freedom.
If I am going to have to subsidize your life, I am going to want to prohibit you from running up the costs unnecessarily. But if I am not responsible for you, you can live pretty much as you choose.
April 6, 2010, 4:46 pmtroll_dc2 says:
Menshevik, Wikipedia’s description of war communism does not support your claim.
April 6, 2010, 4:53 pmFederal Farmer says:
Look at it this way, there are two ways to motivate people to work: 1) carrot, 2) stick.
Capitalism provides for, but does not necessarily guarantee, the use of the carrot. The whole concept of the American Dream is based upon this.
Socialism and Communism end up totalitarian because they can’t offer the carrot, so must use the stick.
Several of my family members describe themselves as socialists, but I think that is primarily due to them never having lived under a true socialist economy.
Now to make the obligatory reference to Star Trek. In ST:NG they mention that they don’t use money and people work at whatever they find fulfilling. Sounds great to me, but who’s going to choose to do the ‘dirty jobs’ (aside from Mike Rowe, that is)?
April 6, 2010, 4:54 pmCatoRenasci says:
The totalitarian potential in socialist thought has been inherent from the beginning – at least since Rousseau and the ‘general will’ – which supports what you call the “born bad” theory. And, of course, Rousseau’s personal behavior was thoroughly despicable, as readers of his Confessions can attest. The French Revolution itself, which not explicitly “socialist” in your modern sense, certainly descended into terror and repression quickly enough. The question that is interesting here is why are bad characters so drawn to socialism? Is it the promise of power and the ability to use it?
I don’t think you example of the Russian Revolution’s quickly establishing the organs of repression and terror is a counterexample to Hayek, if only because the thuggishly oriented Bolsheviks had been in the revolutionary movement for many years – there was plenty of time for the worst to have crowded out the idealists.
Moreover, Hayek’s writing about the worst coming out on top is in The Road to Serfdom, written at a time when I think the intellectual climate required at least a fillip to the ‘good idealists’ attracted to socialism in order to be taken seriously. Hayek, of course, mentions Acton in the chapter on “Why the worst get on top”. I regard Acton’s formulation about all power tending to corrupt as less an alternate explanation, than a truism. He notes that even ostensibly revered ‘idealistic’ socialist like Beatrice and Sidney Webb were profoundly antiliberal.
It seems to me that one cannot consider socialism as a philosophy or ideology without the historical context of both the company its ideas have kept — that is, the men and women who formulated, promulgated and put into practice socialist ideas — and the historical experience of socialism both on its practitioners and those on whom they practiced. The starting place should probably be Stephen Courtois, et. al., The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression (Cambridge: Harvard 1999)
April 6, 2010, 4:58 pmMenshevik says:
Troll dc2, collectivization under war communism did not result in millions of deaths. Collectivization under Stalin did. The Wikipedia piece on collectivization is a good start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivization
Robert Conquest, referenced in the Wiki piece, wrote one of the major sources on collectivization.
April 6, 2010, 5:00 pmhttp://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0195051807/thevolocons0d-20/
Anonsters says:
This is fairly ridiculous, since it suggests that socialism uniquely draws bad characters to itself. Bad characters are drawn to all kinds of political systems.
This is equally silly. Southern plantation owners (read: slaveholders) thrived in a market most people consider freer than markets in the U.S. today. Does that mean that free markets uniquely attract racists and people who want to hold slaves? No.
April 6, 2010, 5:02 pmAllan says:
Yes, yes.
Socialist regimes are brutal at the beginning.
Non-socialist totalitarian regimes are not?
And democracies are not? I seem to remember a little violence in France in the 1780s, the US right after 1783 and in the 1860s, England in the 1600s. Even Finland was brutal until the reds and whites teamed up in the Winter War against the Russians.
My conclusion is that every regime is brutal at the beginning. We only notice the brutality of socialist regimes because they are relatively late-comers, blossoming (perhaps there is a better choice of words) in the early to mid 19th centuries.
It should also be noted that the regimes preceding the socialist revolutions, e.g. Tsars, were not exactly paragons of virtue (violence begetting violence).
April 6, 2010, 5:06 pmS says:
Especially, from Communist governments, since they shot them.
April 6, 2010, 5:09 pmzuch says:
Prof. Somin:
Oh. So Obammie’s not a commie. That’s news to some of the folks at FauxSnooze, and even to some of the regular commentariat here.
Cheers,
April 6, 2010, 5:12 pmCatoRenasci says:
Menshevik: what you say is true as far as it goes – that the collectivization that killed millions through starvation occurred primarily under Stalin, but it was certainly the case that the Cheka and other organs of repression were established within a few months of the October Revolution. And, the murderous nature of Lenin and Trotsky was well known, even in the 1930s. Bertrand Russell (a socialist by the way), wrote in Unpopular Essays of his meeting Lenin in 1920 that :
(XI, Eminent Men I Have Known, p 171 in my paperback copy).
The myth of the “good Lenin” and “bad Stalin” has long been discredited, doubly so since the opening of the Soviet archives in the 1990s.
April 6, 2010, 5:13 pmzuch says:
Brings to mind this distinction:
“Capitalism is the system by which man exploits his fellow man. In communism, it’s the other way around.”
Cheers,
April 6, 2010, 5:14 pmArthur Kirkland says:
This will get good when we reach the part that explains South American butchers (Pinochet), Central American tyrants (Somoza), Caribbean despots (Batista), the repressive regimes of Southeast Asia (Singapore, Indonesia), and, of course, the brutally oppressive left-leaning governments of Northern Europe (Norway, Sweden).
April 6, 2010, 5:14 pmfrankcross says:
Thanks for the distinction. You use socialism correctly, contra to the common discourse.
I’m not familiar with Hayek’s particular thesis here, but it might be adapted to Richter. The original socialists might be bad because they were not authentically idealist but presented this face for public acceptance to gain such power. They may have been power hungry with ill motivation from the beginning. If the killing was slower in developing (I’m not sure), it may only have been because circumstances did not require such oppression at the outset. Even evil totalitarians probably would prefer not to kill their people, ceteris paribus, but they do so when necessary to preserve or advance their power.
April 6, 2010, 5:18 pmaeolius says:
I am frankly at a loss in trying to understand what you hoped to prove with this post.
April 6, 2010, 5:27 pmWhat you did prove is how low your standards are for trying to present the truth. In other words you are an ideologue.
It is exactly that mistake which you tried to correct at the end which shows your aim.
The idealists were Marx and to some degree Engels.There followed in Europe (and here)many Idealist groups using Marx as a basis. In many Northern European countries it was seen as being complimentary to Christianity. And Christian Socialist movements appeared.
Lenin came from Russia which had no democratic history and barely out of feudalism. Leninism was a totalitarianism merged with (or tinged with)Marxism. Lenin and Trotsky were hardly idealists.
Would it surprise you to learn that we may be the only “First World” state without a government health system.
Menshevik says:
CatoRenasci, I’m not arguing for a “good Lenin” versus “bad Stalin,” nor am I arguing that the Bolshevik regime wasn’t repressive from the very beginning. (Someone called Menshevik shouldn’t be expected to be a fan of the Bolsheviks, after all.) I’m just setting the historical record straight regarding collectivization, which was mischaracterized as causing millions of deaths prior to Stalin.
April 6, 2010, 5:28 pmStrict says:
The worst crimes of the Viet Minh were the massive land reforms that started in North Vietnam soon after the Japanese lost WWII and were ousted from Vietnam, and when the revolution against occupation and colonialism focused on the French.
The land reforms were violent, arbitrary, poorly planned and executed by force with little oversight or accountability. The Communist leadership, including Ho Chi Minh, admitted it was a big mistake and a tragedy.
April 6, 2010, 5:29 pmJoeSixpack says:
I have to agree with Federal Farmer. Humans (and all living things I guess) are fundamentally selfish and lazy and need motivation to do the work necessary to survive and thrive. “From each according to his abilities to each according to his needs” therefore only works on paper unless supported by sufficient motivation.
Capitalism theoretically uses the carrot approach – your contributions to society will be rewarded with wealth and the comforts and power it provides. Under socialism, you don’t get to keep the rewards of your work, so the way to motivate people to work is with force.
Then of course you have the European model of socialism, which is to hide the costs, free ride on the contributions of others, and convince the gullible public that you can give them something for nothing.
Or you can exploit natural resources to support a small scale socialist system like in Norway.
April 6, 2010, 5:30 pmJRL says:
How does that connect to the rest of your comment?
April 6, 2010, 5:38 pmCatoRenasci says:
Socialism in Norway (to the extent they have it – which is for the majority, since the rich are excluded rather like the Swedish compromise) works only because the Norwegians are now rich with oil money.
April 6, 2010, 5:41 pmjellis58 says:
Annonsters and I have an extremly differnt idea of what constitutes a “free market” if an economic system that permits slavery is considered “freer” than the one we have today.
April 6, 2010, 5:48 pmBill Harshaw says:
“In actual fact, however, massive oppression usually begins almost immediately after socialist regimes take over. ” I’m not sure I agree–in most of your cases there was significant oppression in the 20 years or so preceding the takeover. So it’s possible that the newly powerful were applying the lessons learned from their predecessors, not exhibiting their inherent depravity (allowing for the existence of original sin). I would agree that an ideological party, like Castro for instance, is likely to take things to an extreme that a Batista would never aspire to. But that’s a cast of mind, not a question of the content of the ideology.
April 6, 2010, 5:52 pmArkady says:
You and Ilya have a disagreement:
April 6, 2010, 5:54 pmVercingetorix says:
Not too many, actually. The most common example, Nazism, rose from the ashes of the Kaiser and a Republic, from one of the greatest wars ever fought and total economic collapse. It seems that the prelude to totalitarianism is revolutionary war, which is many things but rarely “easy.”
April 6, 2010, 6:06 pmjoe critic says:
I challenge Anonsters description of the slaveholding South as a “free market.” She or he says
I define “free market” as allowing participants to make their own economic choices, with minimum government control, and those choices including prices and terms of conditions of exchanging products or labor. When the labor force is enslaved, and government enforces the enslavement regime (as it did), that seems to disqualify the “free market” label. Having a free market in cotton sales, or a free market in selling slaves as “property,” does not override that epic fail at the core.
April 6, 2010, 6:07 pmBama 1L says:
In the future there are no dirty jobs.
April 6, 2010, 6:07 pmBen P says:
My initial thought was that I don’t think it’s any of the above, although on further reflection I would guess my thoughts are sort of splitting the difference between “born bad” and what’s described by Hayek.
I would say that Socialism/Communism inherently leads to oppressive government because it uses a mistaken assumption of human nature.
All other things being equal, humans are much more likely to act in self interest than in the interest of another. Free market theories (Adam Smith etc) posit that a mass of people each collectively acting in their own self interest is good for the whole.
On the other hand Marx posited (or rather “derived” from his peculiar views on labor, economics and government) that people would eventually naturally come to the internally held belief that each individual will be better off if each individual acts for society’s best interest. Marx’s theories end point was almost anarchic.
But Marx’s successors (primarily Lenin and his followers and later Mao etc and Assuming for the sake of the argument that they were ideological and not merely cynically seeking power) came to hold the belief that the change that Marx “predicted” could be brought about sooner than it would naturally occur through the power of government. So they organized an entire governmental system built around creating a “collective” and “proving” that a society where people act for the good of society made everyone better off. (A “workers paradise” or some such thing). Thereby, the argument was made that more people would realize Marx was right.
Of course the workers rarely went along solely for the collective good and had to be forced to do so through the power of the government, requiring more and more oppressive uses of government power to put the system in line.
Of course the big assumption here is that at least some of the second generation were ideological and not simply exploiting Marx’s theories for their own self interest and power gain. That cuts the theory back towards what Hayek thought. But even if you don’t make that assumption, i think you can trace a lot of the problems to the fact that Marx was just flat wrong about the possibility of Human nature changing from being self interested to being solely community interested.
April 6, 2010, 6:11 pmJoseph Slater says:
Ilya:
Despite your update, confusion (between European Social Democracy and Stalin orr Mao-style communism) is still pretty rampant in the comments. Any chance you would consider using two different terms? Most folks use “Social Democracy,” “Democratic Socialism,” or even plain old “Socialism” for the former and “Communism”
I realize some folks are strongly opposed to both, but it’s a pretty important distinction, for any number of reasons.
April 6, 2010, 6:18 pmJoseph Slater says:
Ilya:
Despite your update, confusion (between European Social Democracy and Stalin orr Mao-style communism) is still pretty rampant in the comments. Any chance you would consider using two different terms? Most folks use “Social Democracy,” “Democratic Socialism,” or even plain old “Socialism” for the former and “Communism” for the latter.
I realize some folks are strongly opposed to both, but it’s a pretty important distinction, for any number of reasons.
April 6, 2010, 6:18 pmSoronel Haetir says:
I would also ask about the various European examples, especially post-war UK and France. Certainly by measure of government control of the economy the UK fit your definition of socialist. And while there was (and is) a fair authoritarian streak going there I don’t see it rising anywhere close to being totalitarian.
As for how quickly the Russians fell to despotic rule how much of that infrastructure was actually in place under the czars? As mentioned up thread it’s not like Lenin took over an advanced, even by early 20th century standards, country.
April 6, 2010, 6:21 pmWilmer Warthog says:
Reminds me of the quote attributed to Thatcher: The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people’s money to spend.
April 6, 2010, 6:35 pmFederal Farmer says:
Totally agree with this. Capitalism doesn’t guarantee freedom, but Communism/Socialism requires forced labor in order to succeed.
April 6, 2010, 6:37 pmVercingetorix says:
This is Exhibit A on why I am not a Hindu. One lifetime of this bull$hit is enough for me, thanks.
Who are these ‘most’ people? Where are they? Are they under the table? Are they standing behind me?
So if you ask ‘most’ people: “Hey, dude-bro, like you got two markets, one a slave market and the other is Wall Street. Which is, like, totally more free-er?”
And “most” people are going to pick the…slave labor market? Are you kidding me?
You might think you have this dynamite little point – well the one definitely has less regulations than the other, you see – but, sorry, slavery fails, pretty spectacularly, the ‘freedom’ test.
And the rest is batsh!t insane. Same time Americans had chattel, Russians had serfs, Europeans and Arabs had slaves, and so on.
Free markets don’t attract racists (you idiot), but maybe the stuff on the shelf draws out racists and psychopaths.
Maybe those racists and psychopaths are also attracted to tyrannous institutions, like slave owning, feudalism and socialist despotism? Maybe. Just kinda makes sense.
April 6, 2010, 6:37 pmArthur Kirkland says:
Perhaps we can all agree that huge oil revenues breed indolence, disdain for education and modernity, superstition, rejection of merit, political extremism, immoral distribution of resources and opportunities. We find example after example in modern society. Norway. Saudi Arabia. Venezuela. Texas.
April 6, 2010, 6:46 pmRoland Nikles says:
Slater is right. Progressive taxation, medicare/medicaid, the armed forces, Department of Public Works, Public Transportation, and education are all socialist in nature. No sane person is against all of those things in some measure, and in that sense we are all socialists.
Similarly, noone disagrees that the Nazi, North Korean, Chinese cultural revolution, and Stalinist version of socialism is bad. Defined narrowly like this, the argument is over. It doesn’t much matter whether it’s born bad, turns bad, or morally decays. We’re clear we don’t want it.
As to the question whether government ownership and planning of all or most of the economy necessarily leads to totalitarianism, it’s interesting to juxtapose Naomi Klein’s “Shock Doctrine” and remember that we can’t implement a radical version of Chicago School free capitalism, with no social safety net, without resorting to violence and repression of civil liberties either.
April 6, 2010, 6:50 pmBruce Hayden says:
I think that that is the ultimate cause of the problem, that socialism goes against the basic nature of man, as being greedy and self-serving. It takes force to make him contribute to the community, especially when the community is defined to be well beyond what he can see on a day to day basis (i.e. socialism may be viable at a low level when it can be seen to directly benefit at least the people’s gene pool).
I really don’t believe in the “born bad” theory of socialists. Sure, some are in it for the power, and, yes, they tend to rise to the top. But a lot are in it for altruistic reasons. The problem is, what happens when people do what they naturally do, which is to react selfishly to attempts to “spread their wealth around”.
I apologize for getting a bit political here, but I think that right now we may be seeing how this dynamic works. I don’t think that President Obama is a bad person, and, rather, has somewhat noble intentions. And, I do think that he has somewhat socialist (arguably, more Fascist than communist) inclinations, as evidenced by much of the legislation that he and his Administration have pushed. I think that we may be seeing the corruption of a quasi-socialist in the aftermath of coming to power. He sees that the people just don’t want what is good for them, and he seems to be yielding to the temptation of utilizing whatever power is within his grasp to get them to accept his changes, regardless of their desires.
I think, though, that in a generation or so, the altruists and Utopians are rarely still in charge, and those who see the state as a vehicle for power are now inevitably in charge.
Finally, I think it possible that some form of socialism may be viable in certain cases in an affluent society which has met many of Maslow’s needs. Let me suggest though that the reason that such may work in a small Scandinavian country and not here is that the former is far more homogeneous, and, yes, small.
April 6, 2010, 7:26 pmElliot says:
Socialism seems to demand a group of people who consider themselevs to be so intelligent their ideas have to work in practice. When the ideas don’t work, they can’t accept they really aren’t that smart, blame everybody else, and try to force everyone else to act the way they should.
There is always a ready supply of such towering intellects. Just ask them.
April 6, 2010, 7:34 pmCatoRenasci says:
It’s not at all clear that National Socialism doesn’t share more with socialism than it does with market-based economies: it was certainly dirigiste and its methods were clearly (and fairly openly) imitative of those of the Soviets. Hayek devotes an entire chapter in The Road to Serfdom to “The Socialist Roots of Naziism” describing then important, but now forgotten German socialist thinkers like Werner Sombart, Johann Plenge and Paul Lensch, who Hayek argues provided the leading ideas for the thinkers so important to the National Socialists like Oswald Spengler (who is still worth reading) and Arthur Moeller van den Bruck (well forgotten). And, of course a number of modern historians, such as Ernst Nolte, have emphasized the connections. Italian fascism’s roots, too, are socialist: Mussolini was a leading socialist before World War I.
April 6, 2010, 7:43 pmBrian Tamanaha says:
When explaining the consequences of socialism, Schumpeter offered another reason for why genuine idealists can engage in brutal oppression from the start: True believers in the ultimate goodness or rightness of an ideal can justify doing anything (no matter how horrific) to achieve that ideal as necessary for the greater good. This applies not just to socialism but to any ultimate ideal (Think of anti-abortion activists who kill doctors).
April 6, 2010, 8:12 pmVercingetorix says:
Hi, Imperial Rome calling. Um, just wanted to say that we had a military going for some thousand odd years before socialism. Also public works and…oh, excuse me…
Hi, it’s Queen Elizabeth. Ditto on the military. What?
Hey! Czar Peter in the hizouse! Got your military right here, buckaroo!
See, socialism is not synonymous with government.
It’s entirely possible to have fire brigades and police and a navy and an army, with public roads and schools, and a King, or a Queen, or a democracy, or a republic, or anything else without the government being socialist.
I mean, what in Sam H@ll would non-socialist governments DO if everything government does is by definition is socialist?
Anarchism is not the only alternative of socialism.
This is a false choice. Because I reject 1984, I do not have to advocate Lord of the Flies.
April 6, 2010, 8:12 pmAk Mike says:
Joseph Slater – I respectfully submit that your use of the terms “socialism” and “communism” isn’t quite right. You will note that the “communist” countries all actually refer to themselves as socialist (e.g., former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics). Socialism is the system of the government owning the means of production, which is the system that all of the so-called communist countries had.
Communism was not the system actually in place in “communist” countries, but was the ideology that in the future, when capitalism was completely overthrown, government would wither away and the people would work harmoniously together without any coercion or property ownership. Thus no country ever purported to practice communism, but communist countries practiced socialism and believed in the inevitability of communism.
April 6, 2010, 8:14 pmTim Hulsey says:
Angus says:
April 6, 2010, 8:15 pm“… and less than 10% of left-wingers actually support socialism.”
Unfortunately, “that less than 10%” is in office now!
SteveMG says:
Their overriding goals were to engineer a new society and a New Socialist Man. If this meant treating workers like slaves — depriving them of the freedom to choose their occupation or location,
The noted and widely praised British historian, the Marxist Eric Hobsbawm, defended Stalin’s slaughter of millions by explaining that if he (Stalin) had achieved the communist goal of a perfect society that those deaths were warranted.
Stunning. Even more stunning is that Hobsbawm is held in such high esteem among academics to this very day.
April 6, 2010, 8:18 pmVercingetorix says:
Thank you for that. Bismarckian (sic?) Germany was the prototype of social democracies, and socialism was nearly a German invention. Most of the important luminaries – according to Leszek Kolakowski’s Main Currents of Marxism (or my memory of it, as I do not have it in front of me atm) – were German.
Capitalism is a new invention. Democracy is an old governance just 2 centuries in resurgence from absolutist monarchy. A few Latin American countries come to mind as (sorta) democracies that lapse into tyranny, but this is by no means the natural course of events, a beautiful butterfly zipping itself into a coccoon to emerge as a grubby dictator worm.
I’m not saying capitalist democracies cannot transform into absolutist states. I am absolutely not saying that.
I simply doubt you can get from dynamic capitalism to Pol Pot without the mediation of a warm, blissful socialist chrysalis to die in.
April 6, 2010, 8:27 pmsashal says:
Hmm, Ilya, regarding your inexplicable obsession with this theme.
Is there in USA any measurable political movement, party or influential group of people advocating
“
?
If we will take Beckians and some deranged republicans watching too much FOX or listening to too much of Rush/Levin etc out of the equation this problem only exist in some rather disturbed heads.
April 6, 2010, 8:35 pmI will not be surprised if the McNamarian cases of people jumping
the sharkout the windows while yelling “Marxism is coming , Marxism is coming ” will be reported soon…Chris Travers says:
I think both those explanations miss something very basic: Humans are generally very bad at addressing conflicts of interest. The GM CEO may truly believe that what’s good for GM is good for the country, but all he can really do about it is ask Congress for help. The President knows he will be gone in 8 years, if not sooner.
But for someone like Lenin or Stalin, there is no possibility of separating this. Hence it becomes easy to see any dissent as a threat to the agenda, the revolution, the state, and society. That occurs IMMEDIATELY and doesn’t require waiting for corruption…
April 6, 2010, 8:40 pmVercingetorix says:
In related news, Man cannot fly if he does not have feathers and cannot flap his wings.
In other related news, there is a difference between maximal and incremental progress towards a goal. Simply because Democrats cannot snap their fingers and take over industries – and that is the express goal of single-payer, to bring the medical industry completely under the government and this is the open goal of many Democrats – does not mean this is not what they want to do.
It simply means they cannot, at present, do it. Like a man cannot fly to Tucson on magical angel wings, he can still get to Tucson by elbowing Shatner in the ribs and hopping on the 747.
I mean, come on. Is this the best you got?
April 6, 2010, 8:53 pmzuch says:
Norway was “socialist” before oil was found. And Norwegian GDP grew more in the immediate post-WWII years than it did after the oil era began.
Cheers,
April 6, 2010, 8:55 pmsashal says:
so…. ready to jump?
April 6, 2010, 9:06 pmq says:
“this problem only exist in some rather disturbed heads.”
“My god, the only people still flogging the dead horse of socialism are right-wingers.”
The terrors of communist regimes are not ancient history; I seem to recall that Somin himself was once a victim, thus his interest in this topic. In any case, such commentary is a good reminder of the evils that communist regimes engaged in, as even today there are a non-sizable amount of idealogues who advocate government control of production (no, I am not talking about progressives). In Europe, some parties that are officially communist in their charters have some amount of political power. So the topic is still relevant today.
Contrast this with Nazism. I would find it extremely rude if someone were to comment that those who recount the tragedies of the holocaust are “beating a dead horse.” This despite the fact that Nazism is utterly discredited as an ideology. On the other hand, Communism has not yet reached that point. Ilya’s post can help it do so and I see no reason to complain about his choice of posting or impute ulterior motives onto him. In general, we should approve of those who highlight the crimes of previous regimes.
April 6, 2010, 9:06 pmsashal says:
Soo…
April 6, 2010, 9:07 pmReady to jump?
Vercingetorix says:
The answer is evidently no. Q.E.D.
EL-OH-EL.
April 6, 2010, 9:10 pmzuch says:
We have the various dictatorships and banana republics in Latin America (including the Argentina regimes, Chile’s Pinochet, various stongmen such as Rios-Montt, the regimes in Honduras, Batista, etc.), and our various “anti-communist” friends such as Park Chung-Hee in South Korea, Chaing Kai-Chek in Taiwan, Soeharto in Indonesia, Marcos in the Philippines, the Shah in Iran, anonanon.
For more on this, try reading Stephen Kinzer’s “Overthrow” (just for a compendium of just the various nasty regimes that we the U.S. supported).
There’s been far more RW dictatorships than communist ones.
Cheers,
April 6, 2010, 9:10 pmq says:
“This is fairly ridiculous, since it suggests that socialism uniquely draws bad characters to itself. Bad characters are drawn to all kinds of political systems.”
Your two sentences are logically inconsistent. Communism does seem to uniquely draw bad characters to itself; but this does not imply that bad characters are not drawn to other systems. What’s unique about Communism is that every implementation always draws bad characters. I can’t think of any other political/economic system that almost always has such disastrous results. Even totalitarianism, which one would usually think is the primary ideology that bad characters flock to, does not have such a poor record. For example, South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore all thrived under totalitarian systems (no, I’m not apologizing for their crimes, only recognizing that their populations thrived notwithstanding the illiberality of those regimes).
April 6, 2010, 9:13 pmzuch says:
Oh, it works quite well for suitably chosen definitions of “participants” (and even “persons”). Labor exchanges worked too. They were called “slave auctions”.
Cheers,
April 6, 2010, 9:15 pmzuch says:
You need to get your Sarcas-O-Meter™ into the shop for a tuneup.
Cheers,
April 6, 2010, 9:20 pmVercingetorix says:
That’s probably a tautology. There have been relatively few communist countries, and the number of RW dictatorships does depend, after all, on who’s calling the shots on what’s RW. I’ve seen absurdities such as describing the Baath party, for instance, or Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Libya as right wing. Yeah, no sale, but thanks for playing.
In related news, the price of beef in Peshawar has increased 30 cents per pound.
In other words, that’s a non sequitur.
Who cares if there were/are more right wing dictatorships (without ceding your point, because I am not)? All the other dictatorships in the world in the course of the twentieth century combined do not add up to one Mao or Stalin.
April 6, 2010, 9:23 pmq says:
“We have the various dictatorships and banana republics in Latin America (including the Argentina regimes, Chile’s Pinochet, various stongmen such as Rios-Montt, the regimes in Honduras, Batista, etc.), and our various “anti-communist” friends such as Park Chung-Hee in South Korea, Chaing Kai-Chek in Taiwan, Soeharto in Indonesia, Marcos in the Philippines, the Shah in Iran, anonanon.”
Like someone said earlier, capitalism does not guarantee freedom. On the other hand, communism guarantees totalitarianism, death and suffering to a degree never seen in a capitalist country. Also, totalitarian capitalist regimes seem to gradually become more liberal (i.e. Chile, Taiwan, South Korean, Indonesia, Singapore, Philippines, even Iran, and let’s not forget China). The same can’t be said for totalitarian communist regimes; they remain totalitarian until the “communist” aspect is no longer feasible. Unfortunately for those living in North Korea, the end of communism is not in their foreseeable future.
April 6, 2010, 9:23 pmq says:
Imagine if Ilya had made a post recounting Nazi horrors. If it likewise had those making various comments ranging from “way to beat a dead horse” to “so what? there are more non-Nazi totalitarian countries,” what would you conclude about their sympathies? Would any right-thinking person even make such ridiculous comments?
Why should we tolerate similar sympathies from an ideology that is no better?
April 6, 2010, 9:32 pmMark Field says:
I suspect he’s trying to distract attention from the “Let’s Celebrate Slavery” proclamation of VA’s governor.
I’m wondering if any right wingers in this thread will denounce Pinochet. No takers in the last one.
April 6, 2010, 9:35 pmq says:
“As to the question whether government ownership and planning of all or most of the economy necessarily leads to totalitarianism, it’s interesting to juxtapose Naomi Klein’s “Shock Doctrine” and remember that we can’t implement a radical version of Chicago School free capitalism, with no social safety net, without resorting to violence and repression of civil liberties either.”
A social safety net is not inconsistent with capitalism, as capital still remains in the hands of private owners. In any case, Klein’s reasoning in her book is extremely poor: a) Chile didn’t implement a radical version of capitalism; b) it’s a stretch to connect Chile’s economic policies to its totalitarian policies. For example, they opened up their markets to international trade, which even left-leaning economists support (Klein doesn’t, bless her heart); what does this policy have to do with kidnapping political dissidients?
Klein’s other examples are silly (Falklands War, Iraqi War and China). The two wars have nothing to do with economic policy. And using the Tiananmen Square massacre as an example of free-market ideology leading to tragedy is beyond ridiculous.
April 6, 2010, 9:43 pmq says:
“I’m wondering if any right wingers in this thread will denounce Pinochet. No takers in the last one.”
Pinochet was a ruthless dictator. His crimes should be aired. Still, leftists should be willing to give credit for implementing policies that left Chile much better off than its neighbors. Same goes for the ruthless dictators of the Asian tigers. Their policies taken as a whole did more good than bad. The same can’t be said for Communist regimes.
April 6, 2010, 9:46 pmVercingetorix says:
Pinochet, Pinochet, Pinochet! Jesus Age Christ.
The way the Left hauls the dead Generalismo from his rocking chair, you’d think he was Satan incarnate instead of a comforting corpse for a bunch of psychos with daddy issues.
Fine: consider Pinochet denouncified. I denounce Pinochet. Pinochet, demons begone! This house, is cleansed.
Now, say 50 Hail Mary’s for every person murdered by Castro, Che, Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, Trotsky, et al.
Now that’s a long list. Chop chop, little Sing Sing. Get to it!
April 6, 2010, 9:53 pmJoseph Slater says:
AK Mike:
Yes, I’m aware that brutal Stalinist dictatorships called themselves “socialist” and that communism as Marx envisioned it has not actually been practiced anywhere, including the countries that called themselves communist.
My point, though, is that we really do need different terms to describe brutal Stalinist dictatorships on the one hand and European Social Democracy on the other hand, because they are quite different. I suggested social democracy for the European model and communism for the other model (by your own definition, the Soviet Union and China under Mao called themselves communist). If folks prefer more technical terms, “Second International” socialism could be used for Europe, or at least their social-democratic / labor / socialist parties and “Third International” communism could be used for the USSR, China, etc. But that’s kind of obscure.
April 6, 2010, 9:55 pmmattski says:
Are you saying that the French health care system goes against the nature of man? I’m curious.
Also, Adam Smith thought—correctly—that markets contribute to the community. Are markets “socialist”? Oooh, brain twister!
These posts of Ilya’s are invitations for ham-fisted armchair ideologues to swap-out european style (Canadian style!) social democracy for Soviet style communism.
Never mind that modern societies can and do combine free markets and socialized programs to civilized effect. Many a cranky righty could care less.
And never mind also when a prominent conservative allows that the problem with social democracy is that it makes people too fat & happy.
April 6, 2010, 10:09 pmmattski says:
You sound a lot like my friend Desiderius. Just saying.
April 6, 2010, 10:11 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
zuch,
We have the various dictatorships and banana republics in Latin America (including the Argentina regimes, Chile’s Pinochet, various stongmen such as Rios-Montt, the regimes in Honduras, Batista, etc.), and our various “anti-communist” friends such as Park Chung-Hee in South Korea, Chaing Kai-Chek in Taiwan, Soeharto in Indonesia, Marcos in the Philippines, the Shah in Iran, anonanon.
You are prepared to call all of these totalitarian societies?
April 6, 2010, 10:13 pmJoseph Slater says:
These posts of Ilya’s are invitations for ham-fisted armchair ideologues to swap-out european style (Canadian style!) social democracy for Soviet style communism.
Despite Ilya’s “update,” I have to agree with Mattski.
April 6, 2010, 10:19 pmVercingetorix says:
This is weapons-grade stupid. Socialism = anything that contributes to the community. Self-serving much?
And Yglesias. Of course. Of course you’d enrich that superb mess with a link to Yglesias, the mullah of mediocrity, fierce enemy of spellcheck, Sheik of JournoList.
How am I, a mere mortal, going to compete with such a divine intellect as…Yglesias? I don’t know, maybe use small words and breathe through my mouth. Conundrums and enigmas. Yo.
April 6, 2010, 10:37 pmjukeboxgrad says:
q:
Paging Orin Kerr:
April 6, 2010, 10:38 pmjukeboxgrad says:
vercingetorix:
NR “hauls the dead Generalismo from his rocking chair” on at least three separate occasions in the last 12 months (link, link, link). I guess we should conclude that NR is “the Left.”
April 6, 2010, 10:46 pmsmitty says:
A one-line theological explanation: Marx preached the Kingdom of God, hold the God.
April 6, 2010, 10:56 pmq says:
“Paging Orin Kerr:
I have never heard anyone on the right make any positive reference to Pinochet.”
April 6, 2010, 10:57 pmRather than discredit the eminent Professor Kerr, I will simply admit that I am not “on the right.” Still, you don’t seem to be disagreeing with me. Many of Pinochet’s economic reforms were quite beneficial; I assert they outweighed his brutality. Likewise, I consider Deng Xiaoping to be the greatest statesman of the 20th century, despite China’s well-known treatment of dissidents and the Tiananmen massacre. But, perhaps my views are colored by my experience in Taiwan, where my own family members were jailed for speaking out against the KMT, yet my own eyes cannot help but conclude their policies were a net positive for the island.
Vercingetorix says:
Yes. That’s the exact same thing.
April 6, 2010, 10:58 pmFederal Farmer says:
Maybe you’re just not good at it.
April 6, 2010, 11:12 pmMark Field says:
And here I was going to sing your praises till you had to go spoil it with “I will simply admit that I am not “on the right.””
One of these days, I just know I’ll find a rightie to denounce Pinochet without adding that at least the trains ran on time.
Ditto.
April 6, 2010, 11:16 pmFederal Farmer says:
I think the word ‘capitalism’ is new, but I think the concept predates actual currency.
April 6, 2010, 11:16 pmRicardo says:
It’s been a few years since I read Confessions. Rousseau admits to having had sex with women he wasn’t married to and to masturbating. I don’t remember anything more salacious than that unless you can provide a specific example. Certainly, his behavior was no more despicable than that of Larry Craig, Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, John McCain, Mark Sanford, Ted Haggard or Jimmy Swaggart.
The early socialist movement attracted some very decent people. George Orwell always identified as a socialist and fought on the side of the socialists in the Spanish Civil War even though he was harshly critical of many of his fellow socialists. Socialists A. Philip Randolf and Bayard Rustin played critical roles in the Civil Rights Movement in the early 1960s and worked closely with Dr. King in that period. Socialism in the U.S. had considerable appeal to people who believed in women’s rights, civil rights for black people and basic worker protections. It’s fair to say a majority of the rank and file of the American socialist movement were focused on these three things. Once these three things became part of the American status quo between 1933 and the 1970s, support for socialism evaporated.
Sure, there were some bad people who were attracted to socialism. There were others who were attracted to reactionary, extremist anti-Communist movements as well. There isn’t any evidence of a pattern where more “bad people” lean toward socialism rather than other movements.
April 6, 2010, 11:19 pmAk Mike says:
Joseph Slater – thanks for responding to my comment – your response I think brings out an important disagreement we have. Contrary to you, none of the socialist nations like the Soviet Union, North Korea, China, etc, ever referred to themselves as communist, and indeed they were not communist. The brutal Stalinist dictatorships called themselves “socialist” because they were socialist. Socialism is where the government owns the means of production, which was the case in those countries.
Socialism on the other hand is not an appropriate label for the social democratic societies of Europe. These governments do not own the means of production (mostly), and are not headed in the direction of increased government production. These are really liberal welfare-state societies, where production is private but the surplus is siphoned off, through taxes, to the consumers.
There is no confusing socialist states, which are inevitably brutal, with the European countries, because the latter are not socialist.
April 6, 2010, 11:53 pmjukeboxgrad says:
q:
When you show up here and make remarks sympathetic to Joe McCarthy and critical of “the Al Qaeda Seven” you are going to be seen as “on the right,” regardless of any protest to the contrary.
Once you adopt the idea that brutality can be “outweighed” by “economic reforms” as long as they are sufficiently “beneficial,” then you have become a brute, because only a brute puts those two things on the same scale. If we could increase GDP X% by torturing Y people, what actual ratios would you need to see in order to claim that the torture has been “outweighed?”
====================
vercingetorix:
I missed the part of your comment where you demonstrated otherwise.
April 6, 2010, 11:59 pmMark Field says:
He browbeat his lover into giving up their children to a foundling hospital. Not very honorable.
They were commonly referred to as “actually existing communism”, a phrase which you can easily find by Google. In fact such references caused debate on the non-Stalinist left, which denied that the “USSR” was communist or even socialist (defined as the precursor or transition state).
April 7, 2010, 12:06 amCatoRenasci says:
His general grossness and abusive behavior is so widely documented as to require no further elucidation. However, that pales before the great theorist of education and author of Emile‘s treatment of the five children he had with his mistress (from 1745 until his death), Therese Levasseur: he made her abandon all five, having the midwives drop them at the foundling hospital. I think that goes beyond any of the people you named by well more than a country mile.
You miss the point. No one is saying that there aren’t some good and decent people attracted to socialism. Rather, the argument is that socialism holds a particularly strong attraction for bad people and that they invariably end up in charge in socialist states. You say there isn’t any evidence that more bad people lean towards socialism, but it is a fact that there has never been a socialist regime that has not been totalitarian run and run by very bad people. Not one.
I would not paint such a benign picture as do you of American socialism and socialists, but that is a discussion for another day.
April 7, 2010, 12:09 amJ. Otto Pohl says:
I think Caplan misses the biggest reason for massive state violence in socialist countries. The USSR and other socialist revolutions all took place in predominantly agrarian societies. Yet, socialism, particulalry its Marxist variant is an ideology that emphasizes the leading role of the working class or dictatorship of the proletariat. If you have a workers’ revolution in a peasant country you need to then create an industrial working class. This social transformation requires a great deal of violence and results in a large amount of human suffering. Essentially the Soviet Union sought to compress the Industrial Revolution into the space of a decade complete with an accelerated level of misery. Of course industrialization and the elimination of peasant based agriculture also had great human costs in England and other countries. Dekulakization was in many ways a state directed version of the enclosure movement. The countryside provided both the capital and labor to create an industrial working class in the USSR at geat human cost.
April 7, 2010, 12:18 amCatoRenasci says:
Pinochet was a piker compared to any of the communists you name. And, by all accounts, a reluctant dictator. I have spoken at length with a number of Chilean friends and others who have had long experience with Chile over the years. People whose US-side politics run from moderate liberal to moderate conservative. To a man and woman, they have said that whatever the military government turned into, Allende was worse, and was in the process of turning Chile into a socialist state, complete with the help of Cuban secret police advisers. The Chilean Army did not intervene early or lightly. The leftist mythology of the good Allende and the horrid Pinochet is not what you hear from Chileans who are not of the left.
April 7, 2010, 12:22 amjukeboxgrad says:
You can get your Pinochet t-shirt here.
April 7, 2010, 12:35 amVercingetorix says:
In a way, you’re right, but capital is a more advanced concept than simple money. Capitalism is to money is as calculus is to arithmetic; it’s a higher breed of sophistication.
Was Derbyshire whining like a six year old girl with gum in her hair because we were picking on the poor little mass murderers on the Left (Che, Castro, Mao, Stalin, et al.)?
B-buh-but what about Pinochet! Stalin murdered tens of millions but Pinochet was also a bad guy!
Yeah, Pinochet was a bad guy. He was on par with lightweights like Tito, but if the question is which dictator I want to rip my toenails out, between Stalin and Pinochet, I gotta say, Chile is lovely this time of year.
I honestly cannot fathom how this is even an issue: The G.U.L.A.G. Murder of the kulaks. Starvation of the Ukraine. Purges. Show trials.
These are cosmic evils, apocalyptic, four-horsemen type of atrocities.
Almost nothing compares to that. The only thing similar is Hitler and Mao, Pol Pot maybe, Ghengis Khan, the ancient world massacres and genocides. Charles Manson and Jeffrey Daumer are alright dudes in comparison to that – “Come on over, Jeff, watch the kids. Imma take the little lady out for date night.”
Stalin and Mao (leaving aside National Socialism) are Hall of Famers. Pinochet is your Big Ten champion. I’m sorry your ideology is so awesome at industrial murder. Maybe if you’re uncomfortable with that, you ought to change it.
April 7, 2010, 12:36 amDavid Sucher says:
No mention of socialism in the Soviet Union starts with Russian history — which means you can’t say much about socialism in general.
What is more important than the oppression of the Russian people in, say, 1960: socialism? or Russian history?
The later carries far more weight because more centuries of bad government. I don’t think many Americans understand that Russia was a bad deal for Russians for many centuries before 1917.
April 7, 2010, 12:37 amShelbyC says:
So it’s critical to say somebody is not allied with Al Quaeda? Wow, you lefties :-).
April 7, 2010, 12:39 amVercingetorix says:
You can get your Bambi tshirts in authentic Soviet style right here. Maybe you can pick up a Che shirt while you’re shopping! Fun! Yay!
But, unfortunately, the Che shirt isn’t dripping with the blood of those folks that didn’t make the “New Man” cut. Sorry.
April 7, 2010, 12:41 amVercingetorix says:
And don’t forget the horrors of Batiste (sic?) that fortunately good Castro benevolently saved Cuba from, benevolently.
It’s too tiresome to argue with these guys. If you cannot condemn communism, you are a moral idiot.
April 7, 2010, 12:53 amjukeboxgrad says:
shelby:
You’re right, I read that remark hastily and saw sarcasm that wasn’t there. Thanks for the correction.
===============
vercingetorix:
I’m missing your point. You said this:
As if only “the Left hauls the dead Generalismo from his rocking chair,” for whatever purpose. Wrong.
I’m sorry your ideology is so awesome at making excuses for a brute, relying on the ‘logic’ that this is OK because it’s possible to find bigger brutes. Next up, you’ll explain that we should make excuses for Capone’s thievery because he stole less than Madoff.
April 7, 2010, 12:58 amzuch says:
Huh?!?!? The former Soviet Union? China? Even Vietnam…. Your only example here is North Korea.
Cheers,
April 7, 2010, 12:58 amRicardo says:
This is an example of sample selection bias. A “socialist regime” is, by definition, a group of socialists who managed to rise to power who have not yet been overthrown or voted out of office. That’s actually a small subset of the overall socialist movement.
To be perfectly clear, your point appears to be that socialist ideology inherently attracts bad people. I disagree and point out that a broad survey of socialist movements across the world doesn’t really support this point. I agree with Hayek’s and a bit of Richter’s theory which is that successful socialist movements are going to feature lots of genuinely bad people for reasons stated above. Failed socialist movements, which make up the majority of socialist movements that have ever existed, historically featured much more decent and skeptical people like Orwell who I think would have jumped ship had he lived into the 1950s or 1960s.
Moreover, I stand by my characterization — which is supported by quite a lot of evidence (read Orwell on both his own views as well as his interactions with the British working class in The Road to Wigan Pier) — that socialism held a great amount of appeal for people who believed in women’s rights, who opposed racism or colonialism and who wanted greater protections for workers. In the U.S., neither mainstream political party stood for all three of these things. You simply do not see socialism having nearly as much prominence and credibility today as it did historically. Indeed, Marxism-Leninism completely failed to take hold in North America and Western Europe. An observer in the early 20th century would not have predicted this. What do you suppose the reason for this is?
April 7, 2010, 12:58 amVercingetorix says:
Oooo, I like this. Consider this stolen.
April 7, 2010, 1:04 amzuch says:
“The ends justify the means….”
Which assumes that in fact Pinochet was responsible in fact for Chile’s economic fate, which is pro hoc ergo propter hoc.
You know, Mussolini made the trains run on time too?
Cheers,
April 7, 2010, 1:10 amzuch says:
A little gratuitous racism thrown in just for kicks, eh?
Cheers,
April 7, 2010, 1:12 amRicardo says:
We’ll have to score one point for Acton then. Whether Pinochet was “reluctant” from the start or not, the discovery of secret offshore bank accounts established by him holding far more money than he could have earned through his government salary confirm that he plunged head-first into his role as kleptocrat-in-chief once he got the chance. The most you could say about Pinochet is that he was more discrete and perhaps less greedy than Marcos.
To be fair, I actually agree with conservatives on Pinochet’s economic policies. But Pinochet’s activities outside the economic policy realm don’t deserve any defense.
April 7, 2010, 1:13 amzuch says:
Close enough as makes no difference. No freedom of the press. Rounding up and prosecution (including death sentences) for political dissidents (if not outright death squads). Secret police. I dunno, why don’t you explain how they’re not such.
Cheers,
April 7, 2010, 1:17 amzuch says:
You might make a start by showing some effort. But that may not be sufficient; aptitude may also be required.
Cheers,
April 7, 2010, 1:19 amFederal Farmer says:
I think he was being sarcastic…oh wait, you know that, right?
April 7, 2010, 1:22 amVercingetorix says:
Okay. This is not worth taking a moment of my time to explore, but I’ll get out the whips & chains a little for this S&M romp.
Pinochet is a bit player. He’s nothing. Since when is Chile the center of the world? I don’t even think Chileans care about Chile. My ideology says this about Pinochet and Chile: WTF? Isn’t that the puppet who wanted to be a boy, and, yes, thank you, I am hungry.
Sorry. I don’t pine for a military dictatorship. I’ve been in the military. It sucks.
Why should I, or any conservative or libertarian, or anyone, apologize for Pinochet? Did I miss something? Did Thomas Jefferson write the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and then the “Screw Chile” Manifesto?
I mean, really, this little tear you’re on is pathetic. My ideology does not include the military dictatorship of Pinochet. It is pretty clearly focused on a constitutional republic. If you cannot wrap your tissue-paper mind around that point, Zeus help you.
BUT your ideology (evidently or you wouldn’t be mewling into your man-bib) does include all the horrors of the USSR and China, et al. Stop whining about it. Might as well enjoy your side’s stellar achievement in the annals of what-not-to-do.
April 7, 2010, 1:22 amVercingetorix says:
Just for you, zuch. I’m here…just for you.
April 7, 2010, 1:24 amzuch says:
He meant he was on a different planet, perhaps.
How convenient to find this on the same thread where the usual suspects accuse [unnamed] leftists of ‘defending’ socialism under some supposed “it’s all for the greater good so kwitcherbitchin’, some eggs needed to get broken” rationale. One couldn’t ask for better from a troll.
Cheers,
April 7, 2010, 1:27 amzuch says:
You’re quick. You know that … and just a FYI, that wasn’t sarcastic.
Cheers,
April 7, 2010, 1:32 amzuch says:
To Chileans, it may be. And you’re right; to the thousands of relatives of those killed by Pinochet’s troops, he is “nothing” (if not less than that).
I’m not too sure about that, but I can pretty much assure you that they care not the least about your ignerrent spouting.
But the point was that plenty of “capitalist” countries had dictatorships. And Chile was just one of a long, sad litany. That fact is indisputable. I’d say that anyone that wants to worry about why “socialism” results in totalitarianism ought to take the time to explain why other things also do: If you want to attribute totalitarianism as an inevitable result of “socialism”, you ought to examine the roots and causes of totalitarianism, and see if perhaps some other factor (perhaps present in all the “socialist” countries as well as elsewhere in some places) is not at least as congruent with the data at hand.
Cheers,
April 7, 2010, 1:40 amStrict says:
Elliot: “Socialism seems to demand a group of people who consider themselevs to be so intelligent their ideas have to work in practice. When the ideas don’t work, they can’t accept they really aren’t that smart, blame everybody else, and try to force everyone else to act the way they should.”
Do you have any specific examples?
First, I don’t think the problem with socialist regimes is that they lacked smart leaders. I think it’s pretty clear that Lenin and Mao were evil geniuses; Djilas was obviously quite bright; EMS Namboodiripad was also a genius of sorts; Castro, while absurdly arrogant, is not exactly a dummy.
Second, a specific counterexample: in Castro’s autobiography, he said he regrets not studying enough economics, and that this ignorance was to blame for some bad policies in Cuba. In fact, Casto admits to many other mistakes he made – personal responsibility for the Moncada blunder, for the public executions immediately after the Batista regime fell, and others…
April 7, 2010, 1:43 amjukeboxgrad says:
vercingetorix:
I don’t know why you should, but I notice that you are (in the sense of offering apologetics). That’s my point.
What is my ideology?
April 7, 2010, 1:59 amVercingetorix says:
Whoa! You had a point!? I couldn’t tell.
There’s lots of reasons that ‘capitalist’ countries had dictatorships. Usually it had to do with communists trying to take over. That explains Pinochet, your precious little pet, and South Korea, Taiwan, etc, etc. This isn’t rocket science, chief.
There’s lots of reasons why things happen in the real world. Not every plane crashes the same, for the same reasons. Not every nation crashes into darkness for the same reasons, in the same way.
But the data do include some horrendous monstrosities in the socialist ledger column. Your self-righteous moral preening to the contrary, tabulating at the big numbers to the left is much worse than counting the digits to the right of the decimal.
April 7, 2010, 2:04 amVercingetorix says:
No, and it probably has something to do with Gerber mashed carrots.
April 7, 2010, 2:05 amjukeboxgrad says:
vercingetorix:
You’re not offering apologetics for Pinochet? Then it must have been another vercingetorix who called Pinochet “a reluctant dictator.”
Or maybe this is your way of telling us that you are withdrawing that remark. Which is it?
And I think this is your way of telling us that you claimed to know my ideology even though you know next to nothing about my ideology.
April 7, 2010, 2:15 amRicardo says:
The difference between authoritarian and totalitarian is that a totalitarian society, there is nearly “total” control of the individual’s affairs by the state. Civic organizations are nearly completely outlawed while individuals are restricted in terms of choice of occupation and freedom of movement and are surrounded by spies and secret police agents.
There is also almost always a fanatical cult of personality surrounding the leader. For instance, school children in Turkmenistan or under Saddam’s Iraq were made to study (bad) books of poetry written by the leader, to study all the supposedly heroic aspects of the hero’s life, and to sing songs of praise. In North Korea, there was the disgusting spectacle shown on TV of villagers having their vision restored by expat doctors — the government made sure that when they took the bandages off of their eyes they were facing a large portrait of Kim Jong Il. Then they “spontaneously” started wailing and shouting at fevered pitch their love and devotion to the Dear Leader.
That’s totalitarianism.
By contrast, I know many people who grew up in the Philippines under Marcos and life was nothing like this. People constantly made jokes about Marcos and knew full well what was going on. Marcos had nothing like the secret police network that, say, the East German Stasi had. People could also choose their own occupation and generally live life without everyday interference from the state. Prominent dissidents were treated brutally, of course, but the everyday man or woman could go through life disliking Marcos without being awoken at 2 am by secret police agents waiting to take them to re-education camp.
April 7, 2010, 2:17 amscattergood says:
Socialistic economic systems tends towards violence and totalitarianism because they are exceedingly ineffecient economic systems.
All economic systems have to deal with the reality that ALL goods and services are SCARCE. As such, all economic systems have to have a mechanism to deal with the situations that inevitably arrive where the demand for a good or service outstrips the ability to pay for the good or service. These situations can arise out of production problems (drought or factory fires) or sharp increases in demand (we learn chicken is better than beef for health or Reece’s Pieces become culturally cool).
Capitalism is a self adjusting system in theory. Those who don’t have the money to pay for items accept that failure as a trade off to being able to be free. Socialism is not a self adjusting system. The centralized planning and control of the economy dictate the control of prices and direction of demand in order to cut off these problems.
Hence, the biggest competitive advantage in socialistic societies is being able to sway or influence the coercive power of gov’t in the economy.
The biggest competitive advantage in a capitalistic society is to produce goods and services better, cheaper, and faster.
Socialism requires coercion and force for an economy to function, capitalism requires coercion and force to protect an economy in order to function.
April 7, 2010, 2:33 amzuch says:
Ahhhh. Communist countries had totalitarianism because of communism. And capitalist countries had totalitarianism because of communism. Who wouldda thunk it? You’re a jeen-yus, I tell ya. Betcha Satan himself is behind the invention of communism … everything he touches (or even looks at) turns to evil…. I could have saved myself a lot of studying in high school civics.
Cheers,
April 7, 2010, 3:00 amzuch says:
OIC. Authoritarians kill their political prisoners with kindness and good wishes towards all. Ask “q”; he’ll explain it.
Cheers,
April 7, 2010, 3:07 amq says:
Lol. So saying that the seven lawyers could not possibly be allied to Al Qaeda is critical of them? OK… Nor was my remark that sympathetic to McCarthy. I was sipmly pointing out that many of his accusations turned out to be true, as opposed to the baseless Al Qaeda Seven accusations. In other words the AQ7 accusations were worse than McCarthyism. Please learn to read, thanks.
Nice strawman. Let me make this clear: in no way was the brutality at all beneficial. But the efficacy of his economic reforms can be considered outside of his brutality, as those policies were separate. Still, it is quite possible to take an entire set of policies and determine if they are a net benefit. China was quite brutal to its dissidents in the 90s, yet you’d have to be delusional not to realize that on the whole their country improved by leaps and bounds in that decade. This does not mean we should gloss over their crimes, nor should we say that today their economic growth allows us to forgive the illiberal nature of their government. But when judging the regimes of the past, we should take everything into account.
April 7, 2010, 3:10 amzuch says:
Sure. Ask Benigno Aquino. Oh … right, you can’t, he’s dead.
Cheers,
April 7, 2010, 3:11 amzuch says:
This explains the necessity in “capitalist” countries (even “successful ones”; see your fellow commenters’ thoughts on Chile above) for such measures.
If you think that authoritarianism and dictatorship are about fixing economies, you have another think coming, not to mention your dissing your vaunted capitalism. I await your follow-up treatise to Adam Smith’s seminal volume: “Capitalism Is Not Enough!!!”
That’s three so far by my count. Do we have any other apologists for totalitarianism that care to chime in?
Cheers,
April 7, 2010, 3:18 amJames A. Donald says:
Look, I know what is good for you, and if you resist my knowledge, what moral choice do I have but to imprison you or put a bullet in your head? If I don’t, then I am allowing you to lead others astray, and this is a moral failing on my part.
If I and people like me have absolute and total power well of course we are going to use it to do good. Naturally. So anyone who opposes people like me having total absolute power over everyone is obviously opposed to all the good stuff I would do. Lots and lots of good stuff.
Recall all those good people who visited Stalin’s gulag (in between visiting luxury hotels reserved exclusively for friends of the regime) and gave us glowing reports of all the good that Stalin was doing. They saw the wonderful equality of the Soviet Union (without, of course, themselves having to personally put up with inconvenience of themselves being equal to the inferior people they were guiding and helping)
As George Bernard Shaw told us during the minor inconvenience caused by kulaks in the Ukraine “Famine, what famine? Did you ever see such an abundance of excellent food?”, gesturing around the special restaurant reserved exclusively for foreign friends of the regime.
Of course, regrettably, stern methods are necessary to deal with those who fail to appreciate the great bounty bestowed on them by socialists.
April 7, 2010, 3:21 amjukeboxgrad says:
q:
I acknowledged that I misread your comment as soon as shelby pointed that out.
Reading is good, and that includes you reading the comment of mine that I just cited.
Once you claim, as you did, that the brutality is “outweighed” by “the efficacy of his economic reforms,” then you are no longer treating these two things as “separate.” You are, literally, putting them on the same scale.
Once you claim that brutality can be “outweighed” by a sufficiently large monetary payoff, then “gloss over their crimes” is exactly what you’re doing.
April 7, 2010, 3:35 amRicardo says:
Zuch, you’re clearly having reading comprehension problems today. “Prominent dissidents were treated brutally, of course, but the everyday man or woman could go through life disliking Marcos without being awoken at 2 am by secret police agents waiting to take them to re-education camp.”
I’m pretty sure I know many more people than you do who experienced the Marcos dictatorship. It was the Catholic-run Radio Veritas that managed to broadcast to the people of Manila to assemble non-violently and protect rebel army general Fidel Ramos and defense minister Johnny Enrile from being arrested by Marcos’ goons for declaring him an illegitimate President. This started the People Power Revolution. In a totalitarian society, Radio Veritas would have been immediately shut down, its broadcasters jailed and tortured or shot and those people who gathered on Manila’s EDSA ring road would have been massacred in the street without compunction. Look at how Saddam Hussein or Adolf Hitler treated coup attempts.
Marcos was a corrupt thug but he was not a Stalin or a Mao and you would pretty quickly lose credibility with most Filipinos who were alive at the time if you made the comparison.
April 7, 2010, 3:43 amq says:
I never said his economic policy justifies his brutality, simply that taken as a whole, he moved his country forward while the same cannot be said for communist regimes. We can still criticize his brutality and recognize it was an unnecessary waste of life.
April 7, 2010, 3:54 amq says:
My mistake then, I started replying before fully catching up.
I believe you’re misinterpreting what I’m saying. As far as the “outweigh” statement goes, that was simply as a way to judge his regime as a whole: was it beneficial to the Chilean people or not? I say it was, despite Pinochet’s many, many flaws. That does not mean we should imitate his policies or not recognize his ruthlessness and give it proper criticism. Likewise, we can recognize Nixon’s many, many flaws yet realize he did one great thing in opening diplomacy with China. I believe when judging the past, one should look at the whole, not just a list of atrocities.
On the other hand, there is very little to condone with regards to many Communist regimes, much like there is very little to condone with regards to Nazi Germany. I wish we could all recognize this without equivocation.
April 7, 2010, 4:00 amJames A. Donald says:
What communist leader killed so few as Pinochet?
If any communist ruler killed as few as Pinochet, you would think him a saint, and compare him to Mahatma Ghandi.
April 7, 2010, 4:04 amq says:
Basically, Professor Somin recounted Communist crimes, and predictably some cry, “Chile!” as if that were in any way relevant. My basic counterargument is that Chile is incomparable both on scale of the crimes and the overall policy picture instituted by Pinochet. Perhaps you disagree that Pinochet’s policies were a net benefit; but I think we can all agree that Pinochet’s economic policies were vastly superior to Mao’s or Stalin’s, and Pinochet certainly did not engage in murder at the same scale. The comparison is inapt.
If a “tu quoque” argument were even appropriate in such discussion, Pinochet should be brought up in discussion of, say, Vietnam. The atrocities are at least closer in comparison there.
April 7, 2010, 4:13 amjukeboxgrad says:
q:
You said this:
I don’t see a hell of a lot of daylight between “justifies” and “outweighed.”
April 7, 2010, 4:25 amq says:
Let me summarize why bringing up “Chile” whenever Communism is mentioned is grossly inapt:
1) Nearly every attempt at implementing Communism at the national stage has led to mass murder and starvation, as well as horrid totalitarian crimes.
2) Capitalism, on the other hand, tends to create liberal democracies.
2) For the relatively fewer totalitarian capitalist countries, they have their share of crimes as well (Singapore’s probably the most liberal and “well-behaved” totalitarian country, but many say this won’t last after Lee), but murder and suppression are at a much lower scale and citizens are not generally starving to death due to over-idealistic economic policy.
3) Moreover, most totalitarian capitalist countries have gradually shed their totalitarianism. The same cannot be said for totalitarian communist countries, unless they stop being communist. See China, Eastern Europe, Vietnam, Russia?.
April 7, 2010, 4:28 amq says:
It’s really not that hard to understand. Does the overthrowing of Nazis justify the firebombing of Dresden? I would say no, that was a senseless loss of life. But does the overthrowing of Nazis outweigh the firebombing? Yes, indeed. This is relevant when discussing whether or not the European front in WWII was a net benefit. We can say it was a net benefit, despite the fact there were many examples of senseless murdering of innocents.
I think a good modern example is China. Does China’s economic progress justify its suppression of dissidents? Not at all. We in the United States recognize that China can progress without such abuse of human rights. We can recognize that China’s policies are not optimal. But on the whole, China is improving, and we should celebrate that fact, because we are talking about the welfare of many millions.
April 7, 2010, 4:37 amRicardo says:
Totalitarian really doesn’t apply. The internet is almost completely unfettered which means that English-speaking Singaporeans (most of them) can read all the dirt they want to on foreign websites. Malay newspapers are officially banned within the country but Malaysia is just a short drive away for Singaporeans and you can read all the banned newspapers you want there. Pornography is illegal but, oddly enough, prostitution is not.
Singapore’s laws seem based on the theory that there is a large amount of riffraff in the country who can’t make basic decisions for themselves. Anyone with money and some initiative can watch banned movies, read websites highly critical of the government, go on extended whoring and gambling excursions and generally do just about anything they can do in any free country except publicly criticize government officials. For anything you can’t do in Singapore, there are relatively cheap daily non-stop flights to Hong Kong, Bangkok, Manila and many other cities.
I agree that this will probably change pretty soon in the direction of more liberal government.
April 7, 2010, 4:52 ammattski says:
Buddy, it was Bruce Hayden who wrote that because of man’s inherent nature:
Exactly how you interpreted my remark as self-serving, though, is a mystery.
This is just a personal opinion, but you aren’t contributing much to this thread beyond insults and puffed up ego. FWIW.
April 7, 2010, 7:00 amscattergood says:
Your constant reference to Chile is a red herring. The authoritarianism of Pinochet came in BEFORE capitalistic, free market reforms occured. As cited by Wikipedia:
Given the actual facts of the situation, they support my contention far better than yours.
But hey, never let a few facts actually get in your way of your point.
Cheers,
April 7, 2010, 8:45 amSal says:
I am perplexed by this discussion, I had thought the proposition was that socialism is inherently evil and then it morphed into the people who are . . . are inherently evil. This confusion is perhaps understandable because it is odd to claim economic or political process ideas are themselves evil. People can be evil but ideas? Unless they are so closely tied with actions ideas are, generally, just ideas.
If one looks at the sweep of the last two hundred and fifty years, you have a brutal system, capitalism, replacing another often brutal system of agrarian life. But at least agrarian life was ameliorated by traditionalism, which comforted people. Capitalism with its “creative destruction” has no such amelioration. Socialism came as a response to this brutality. But socialism in certain countries (mostly in the east) was even more brutal. Socialism in the west, on the other hand, has ameliorated the brutality of capitalism. And it’s this mixed -capitalism that has won the day.
Who knows what the future holds? Perhaps that surprisingly robust (to me) discussion on the extinction of copyright and property rights on the internet points to what the next change will be. We should look to ways to make whatever change comes – less brutal.
April 7, 2010, 8:49 amLN says:
Was Pinochet worse or better than Obama?
April 7, 2010, 9:34 amJoseph Slater says:
AK Mike:
I’m not sure we disagree on the main point, which was the problem with much of this thread until it veered off into a debate on Pinochet. My main point was that European social democracy and Stalinism / Maoism are very different things, and that too many commenters were lumping them together under the common name of “socialism.” I believe we agree on that.
Again, within reason, I don’t care what two names folks use to describe these two systems, as long as it’s clear the two systems are quite distinct. I could quibble with you over whether it matters what the folks in the parties called themselves. For example, some of the Stalinist / Maoist style countries used the word “Democratic” in the name of their countries, and of course they were in no sense “democratic”; some of the European parties that aren’t explicitly calling for workers control of the means of production in all cases still call themselves “socialist.”
And the problem with the pure, “as Marx himself described” socialism or communism, we haven’t had either.
So I’ll stick with “social democratic” for the European folks and “communist” for the dictators. You can use different terms if you want; again, the point is that Sweden is very different from North Korea, and using the term “socialist” to describe both is simply a category error.
April 7, 2010, 9:36 amsashal says:
United States of America is closer to original Marxist idea of communism then any other country at this moment in history .
Marx believed that communism is possible when the production of human necessities will be to the degree when it will be plenty enough to all citizens to enjoy the fruits of high developed technology.
Of course the human factor -psychology and the desire to be better then thy neighbor was not that prominent in his ideas..
April 7, 2010, 9:50 amAnd as we all now know Lenin in his Marxist version thought that there is no need to wait for some distant future , people can be FORCED into the Utopian idea right now starting with socialism the way Ilya has described-government owning all major means of production..
Of course early social democrats thought that evolutionary process will bring the desirable society without any violence to the fruition just as well, but gradually.
And sure they were much closer to the truth, and surprise they were much closer to the original Marx, before he embraced the revolutionary methods.
Martinned says:
Actually, capitalism involves both carrots and sticks: “He who does not work shall not eat” (or have health insurance), etc.
That one always intreagued me, too.
Seconded.
April 7, 2010, 10:04 amMartinned says:
While you are right to make the distinction between Marxism in its original form and Leninist Marxism, I still think your initial claim overstates the case. If you’d like to back it up with some cites, etc., that would be much appreciated.
April 7, 2010, 10:06 amMartinned says:
That would be Lenin’s contribution…
April 7, 2010, 10:07 amMartinned says:
Which would be more apposite if it wasn’t for the fact that Sweden also produces a lot, meaning that they are in fact spending their own money.
April 7, 2010, 10:10 amPubliusFL says:
Robots?
April 7, 2010, 10:13 amFederal Farmer says:
Withholding reward is not the same as punishing. Not giving food is not the same as forbidding food.
Live in a forced labor camp and then come back and offer perspective on carrots and sticks.
April 7, 2010, 10:23 amMartinned says:
The redshirts weren’t robots. If they didn’t get paid, why would anyone volunteer for that job?
April 7, 2010, 10:23 amFederal Farmer says:
Heh…I’ve read too much Frank Herbert to welcome the Machine Age.
April 7, 2010, 10:24 amMartinned says:
The prospect of starving is a stick, whichever way you look at it. The whole point of capitalism is to offer sticks and carrots in one fell swoop. The inefficient go bankrupt and the winners reap huge rewards. None of which is at par with “forced labor camps”, but then that is hardly the point. The point is that capitalism works with carrots and sticks, and communism only with sticks. Hence the problem.
April 7, 2010, 10:26 amMartinned says:
Frank Herbert? Wouldn’t the more obvious Science Fiction reference be the Terminator or the Matrix?
April 7, 2010, 10:27 amzuch says:
Well, most “everyday” men and women could go through life disliking Stalin or Mao without being woken up at 2AM as well … as long as they kept their grumbling quiet. That’s the purpose of such repression: To silence dissent. Go public and challenge the authority, and then they kill you….
Do you really insist that a regime is not [as] bad as long as they only kill you for dissent? A rather low bar, I’d say….
Cheers,
April 7, 2010, 10:31 amMark Field says:
I’m the one who brought up Pinochet, and I did so because:
1. Prof. Somin is, as Joseph Slater has noted, using the term “socialist” to describe communism. While there are some technical and historical justifications for this, in common parlance they are different. I’m using the Pinochet example precisely in order to show that there are distinctions of evil that need to be made, and Prof. Somin is adding to the confusion by failing to do so.
This ties into Ricardo’s point that socialism attracted lots of good people. You could make a long list of those in Western Europe who found it an attractive theory. That’s why it’s important to distinguish it from the thugs who took over Russia, China, and elsewhere.
2. There was a previous thread on the evil of Che Guevara in which the righties were self-righteously denouncing Che for his crimes. I challenged them to denounce Pinochet for his. Silence ensued.
3. I saw the same self-righteous behavior in this thread and thought it worth reminding everyone of their hypocrisy. This is particularly true since there’s always a demand that we liberals denounce Stalin. I’ll note that liberals have no reason to denounce Stalin, other than general distaste — we share nothing in common with him and never supported him even if others on the “left” did. Still, turnabout is fair play: if we have to denounce anyone the Right throws up, then the Right has to play by those rules too. Or we could all just give up such silly games. Including Prof. Somin.
April 7, 2010, 10:33 amFederal Farmer says:
I guess it depends upon one’s age.
April 7, 2010, 10:38 amShelbyC says:
Capitalism involves government getting out of the way and letting people make their own carrots or sticks. There’s nothing wrong with someone who doesn’t work eating, or having health insurance, as long as somebody is willing to produce food for them, or give them health insurance.
April 7, 2010, 10:45 amVercingetorix says:
You’re an idiot. Search for “a reluctant dictator” on this page.
April 7, 2010, 10:51 amDotar Sojat says:
I never met a socialist who thought that after the revolution, he/she would just be an annonymous worker bee, happily working for the good of all, according to his/her ability. They always saw themselves as one of the folks who would be in charge “when we are in power.” The people would need leaders. Let the others be Boxer the horse. They were the ones who would guide the rest of us, whether we wanted it or not.
April 7, 2010, 10:52 amMartinned says:
Actually, I think you’re now mixing up libertarianism and capitalism. (For the record: the distinction doesn’t matter one iota, just like it doesn’t matter whether we agree that “no food” qualifies as a stick.) From a properly theoretical neo-classical point of view, altruism mucks up the perfection of the general equilibrium, i.e. the equilibrium in all (perfect and free) markets simultaneously. Altruism causes its object to underproduce, meaning that the total value added in the economy is lower than it could be.
April 7, 2010, 10:55 amMartinned says:
I’m no fan of communism, but on this one I think I’d have to say you simply haven’t met enough communists. Going back to the times before the reality of communism became apparent to all, when it was still possible to believe that communism would be a good thing even to those who wouldn’t be in charge, I think you would find exactly those “Boxers” among the factory workers listening to Rosa Luxemburg or Jean Jaurès.
Of course, now that we know how much misery inevitably follows communism, it is logically impossible to believe that communism would be a good thing unless you also think you’ll be running the place.
April 7, 2010, 11:02 amzuch says:
You say “unnecessary”. Then why mention the “econom[y]” at all? And then there’s the question as to whether his regime was in fact responsible for any improved economics (and indeed whether there was any more such improvement than would have happened otherwise).
And you say that communist regimes can’t move their country forward. I think that China in recent times belies that (although you might quibble as to how “communist” they are, but that line of thought then gets one into other difficulties WRT claims about communism not opening up voluntarily) … not to mention Russia itself. You have to consider where Russia was before the revolution … and then on to become a world superpower. I’m not defending Stalin et al.; just pointing out that the same ‘argument’ you’re making can be (and has been) applied to Stalin’s notorious regime. If you agree to drop this defence (or whatever it is that is motivating you to bring this up) of Pinochet, I’ll gladly not discuss such ethically suspect ‘rationalisations’….
Cheers,
April 7, 2010, 11:09 amzuch says:
Along with “the ends justify the means”, we now have “de minimis non curat lex“….
Cheers,
April 7, 2010, 11:13 amElliot says:
I agree they were smart. They just weren’t smart enough to succeed. When they failed, they thought they were smart enough to fix things.
The folks who think they and their associates are this smart do very well in environments where they are not accountable for measurable results.
I agree Castro admits to mistakes now. But when he was making them he sure didn’t. Even now, he thinks he would have been smart enough if he just had a bit more grounding in economics and history.
April 7, 2010, 11:14 amzuch says:
But that would defeat Prof. Somin’s implicit claim/argument that all “socialist” countries are inevitably dictatorial hellholes, no?
Cheers,
April 7, 2010, 11:16 amMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
Zuch, Ricardo has basically said what I would’ve. In a “banana republic” dictatorship there just isn’t the overwhelming surveillance apparatus that is what we mean when we talk about totalitarianism. They are both bad things, obviously; but they are different things. And I know which I’d prefer.
Ricardo, you obviously have more experience of Singapore than I. Still, there’s a sort of regimentation there that seems like it’s trying to be totalitarian, except that they don’t quite have the guts to close the borders.
Or, of course, they realize that open borders are what makes them prosperous.
April 7, 2010, 11:23 amzuch says:
But you ignore the fact that Chile is just one (cherry-picked by you on the assumption that Pinochet actually worked economic miracles) example of non-communist dictatorships. You might consider Honduras, one of our neat little “banana republics” in Latin America, where, in the interests of U.S. companies, pliant rulers were installed (often with U.S. military assistance or threat; see Stephen Kinzer’s “Overthrow” for the sanguinary details), and the country is a shambles. Or Guatemala. Of the Central American countries, Costa Rica is in perhaps the best shape, and it’s the one we (the U.S.) have done the least meddling in, in pursuit of the interests of U.S. corporations and their buddies below the border….
Cheers,
April 7, 2010, 11:24 amVercingetorix says:
Insults are fun, when the targets are beyond parody. The syllogism you used, socialism = anything that serves the community, is self-serving. It’s vapid. It’s shallow.
Hayden didn’t equate socialism to contributing to the community. Did he imply certain aspects of socialism were supposed to benefit the community? Sure. Did he say all things that benefit the community were socialist and vice versa. No. But….whew, boy, you sure did take that ball and run with it.
Yeah, okay, if you want to double down on that: Markets = socialism. Whoa.
That’s why I make fun of you. That’s why I insult you. There’s precious little I can do to actually engage that level of “Huh? What the h#$% does that even mean? Did he just get up from naptime and start banging away at teacher’s computer?”
April 7, 2010, 11:26 amMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
Vercingetorix,
You’re an idiot. Search for “a reluctant dictator” on this page.
Indeed.
jukeboxgrad, that’s what happens when you comment in the middle of the night. Been there, done that.
April 7, 2010, 11:26 amzuch says:
Why is this odd?
Cheers,
April 7, 2010, 11:30 amDaily Pundit » Why Is Socialism So Oppressive? says:
[...] The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Competing Explanations for the Oppressive Nature of Sociali… [...]
April 7, 2010, 11:38 amzuch says:
Look, I’m the one that keeps pointing out that Chile is just one of many.
And claiming that Pinochet’s authoritarianism came before economic reforms does no damage to any of my arguments; it instead cuts against the claims of others here. Go argue with them.
Cheers,
April 7, 2010, 11:38 amCrust says:
What S asked:
In any event, Somin’s definition of the word “socialism” is idiosyncratic. It’s not how the term is usually used at least in contemporary politics, either by people who adopt the label for themselves (e.g. Bernie Sanders or European socialist parties) or people who criticize “socialism” (e.g. lots of Obama’s critics call him “socialist”).
April 7, 2010, 11:49 amMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
zuch,
And claiming that Pinochet’s authoritarianism came before economic reforms does no damage to any of my arguments; it instead cuts against the claims of others here.
Oughtn’t that to be “Pinochet’s totalitarianism”? I mean, that was your claim, yes?
April 7, 2010, 11:55 amzuch says:
Huh? I thought the major crimes of the “socialist” regimes was the killing off of people and ruthless suppression of “enemies of the state”. The secret police, torture centres, assassinations, massacres, etc. are found in the sanguinary history of the RW as well (consider the Shah’s notorious SAVAK).
So now in addition to the “ends justify the means” and “de minimus non curat lex” apologia for RW dictatorships, we have an implicit “no true Scotsman” argument: “No real RW gummint has secret police and a surveillance state” (even if they torture and kill their dissidents and anyone else that gets in their way). Unfortunately for you, even that isn’t true.
Cheers,
April 7, 2010, 11:59 amMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
zuch,
So now in addition to the “ends justify the means” and “de minimis non curat lex” apologia for RW dictatorships, we have an implicit “no true Scotsman” argument: “No real RW gummint has secret police and a surveillance state” (even if they torture and kill their dissidents and anyone else that gets in their way).
I’m not saying that at all. I’m saying that “totalitarian” has a generally accepted meaning, and that it is not just “oppressive government that kills anyone who opposes it.” It involves minute control over every aspect of every citizen’s life, and a surveillance apparatus equal to the task. Ricardo was quite right to laugh at the idea that Marcos’s was a totalitarian regime.
April 7, 2010, 12:11 pmFrances Smith says:
Khmer Rouge under Pol Pot in Cambodia is probably one of the most horrific examples of socialist regimes that resulted in genocide — it is estimated that about 25 percent of the population were killed as a result of slave labor, purges, and forced marches.
April 7, 2010, 12:12 pmMartinned says:
The Cambodia example, like Stalin, is also particularly vulnerable to the socialist version of the aforementioned No True Scotsman fallacy: No true socialist regime would do such a thing/such things have nothing to do with socialism. Of course, the problem is that there is something to that. Stalin, particularly, can just as easily be understood as a 20th century czar as as an example of communism gone wrong. I don’t think the same goes for the Khmer Rouge, though.
April 7, 2010, 12:22 pmMenshevik says:
I’m surprised no one has cited Kirkpatrick’s Dictatorship and Double Standards, a 1979 article in Commentary magazine that was influential in shaping the debate on the difference between totalitarian and authoritarian regimes. Many of her predictions were off, but the following is relevant in regard to some of the arguments on this thread:
“The foreign policy of the Carter administration fails not for lack of good intentions but for lack of realism about the nature of traditional versus revolutionary autocracies and the relation of each to the American national interest. Only intellectual fashion and the tyranny of Right/Left thinking prevent intelligent men of good will from perceiving the facts that traditional authoritarian governments are less repressive than revolutionary autocracies, that they are more susceptible of liberalization, and that they are more compatible with U.S. interests. The evidence on all these points is clear enough.
Surely it is now beyond reasonable doubt that the present governments of Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos are much more repressive than those of the despised previous rulers; that the government of the People’s Republic of China is more repressive than that of Taiwan, that North Korea is more repressive than South Korea, and so forth. This is the most important lesson of Vietnam and Cambodia. It is not new but it is a gruesome reminder of harsh facts.
From time to time a truly bestial ruler can come to power in either type of autocracy–Idi Amin, Papa Doc Duvalier, Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot are examples–but neither type regularly produces such moral monsters (though democracy regularly prevents their accession to power). There are, however, systemic differences between traditional and revolutionary autocracies that have a predictable effect on their degree of repressiveness. Generally speaking, traditional autocrats tolerate social inequities, brutality, and poverty while revolutionary autocracies create them.
Traditional autocrats leave in place existing allocations of wealth, power, status, and other re- sources which in most traditional societies favor an affluent few and maintain masses in poverty. But they worship traditional gods and observe traditional taboos. They do not disturb the habitual rhythms of work and leisure, habitual places of residence, habitual patterns of family and personal relations. Because the miseries of traditional life are familiar, they are bearable to ordinary people who, growing up in the society, learn to cope, as children born to untouchables in India acquire the skills and attitudes necessary for survival in the miserable roles they are destined to fill. Such societies create no refugees.
Precisely the opposite is true of revolutionary Communist regimes. They create refugees by the million because they claim jurisdiction over the whole life of the society and make demands for change that so violate internalized values and habits that inhabitants flee by the tens of thousands in the remarkable expectation that their attitudes, values, and goals will “fit” better in a foreign country than in their native land.”
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/dictatorships–double-standards-6189
April 7, 2010, 12:32 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
Menshevik,
I think there are many here who would be too shy to quote Jeanne Kirkpatrick, however aptly. But thanks for doing so.
The next-to-last paragraph you quote really does encapsulate what I think is the relevant difference.
I wondered myself why no one had quoted this bit of C. S. Lewis:
Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
That, I think, is what separates a Marcos from a Pol Pot.
April 7, 2010, 12:47 pmzuch says:
As I said, “no true Scotsman”. Let’s just ignore the thousands in Santiago stadium and the fate of Victor Jarra.
Or perhaps C.L. Dodgson: “When I use the word ‘totalitarian’, it means what I choose it to mean, neither more, nor less….”
And then we have the SAVAK. Bite. Chew. Enjoy.
Cheers,
April 7, 2010, 1:02 pmMartinned says:
Sorry zuch, but they call it totalitarian for a reason.
Regimes that are extremely tyrannical without striving to control the minutiae of people’s lives are called authoritarian.
Totalitarian states are necessarily authoritarian, but the reverse is not true. Because communism implies state control over the means of production, and the means of production are central to people’s lives, communist states are much more likely to be totalitarian than their otherwise equally authoritarian right-wing counterparts.
April 7, 2010, 1:07 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
Martinned, thanks.
April 7, 2010, 1:12 pmzuch says:
Look, I’ll admit to the horrors of Stalinism and the Khmer Rouge. Do me a favour and admit to the horrors of the Argentine junta, Chile, Guatemala, Iran, Iraq, hell, even Greece. Not to mention Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, and Imperial Japan.
I find this idea of “comparative evil” I see here stomach-churning.
I just want someone here to admit that horrors have been perpetrated by RW regimes as well.
* * * * *
On a more general note, I’d say that Prof. Somin’s post is a bit question-begging: “Why are socialist regimes totalitarian?”, and I think Prof. Somin should answer this, and not just in the manner of his update.
As I said above, I think the relevant first question is “why are totalitarian regimes totalitarian?” One might find that some such regimes are “socialist”. Were they all socialist, one might be prompted to ask what (if anything) it is about the nature of socialist regimes that predisposes (or mandates) totalitarianism. If (as is the case) some totalitarianist regimes are not “socialist”, one should look for other predisposing factors that are not unique to socialism, or even to multiple causes for totalitarian inclinations. Without an overall knowledge of the factors that predispose to totalitarianism, one can’t really arrive at any comprehensive or complete theory as to such.
What’s even more disturbing in Prof. Somin’s ‘selective’ inquiry is Prof. Somin’s own “no true Scotsman” fallacy, exemplified in his update: “All socialist countries are totalitarian.” “That’s not true, the European social democracies are not totalitarian.” “But these countries are not socialist. All socialist countries are totalitarian.”
Prof. Somin needs to explain, in any theory of how socialism predisposes or necessitates totalitarinaism, why any particular features of “socialism” (as practised by these countries) do not do so, but why some features (either the same or different) of the “totalitarian socialist” states do. And then perhaps add an addendum as to what features (either the same or different) of the “non-socialist” totalitarian states are responsible for that. HIs present inquiry, as phrased, is not such as to elicit such more illuminating answers, and as such can not have much to say of the nature of socialism.
Cheers,
April 7, 2010, 1:46 pmzuch says:
At the risk of a “Godwin’s Law” rejoinder: “Hitler”.
Cheers,
April 7, 2010, 1:50 pmzuch says:
IC. New regimes “create” abuses, while old regime let the old ones persist. What a blinding revelation.
Cheers,
April 7, 2010, 1:53 pmMartinned says:
Done. But then, I don’t think this was in dispute. There just seemed to be some difficulty as to the definition of totalitarianism, which I tried to clear up.
Presumably that’s why he wrote “regularly” instead of “always”.
April 7, 2010, 1:54 pmVercingetorix says:
Saddam’s Iraq is an animal of the Baath party, a socialist party. It’s motto: “Unity, Liberty, Socialism” (wahda, hurriya, ishtirakiya).
No. Deal. You eat the crow on your plate. Leave my/our plate out of it.
[Personal insult deleted. Folks, please be polite to each other. -EV]
April 7, 2010, 1:55 pmMartinned says:
That’s actually a nice one to ponder. Is there some objective way, other than the Baath party’s slogan, to determine whether the Baath party (parties?) is socialist or fascist? And does it even matter, except as a chess piece in the grand global game of left vs. right tu quoque?
April 7, 2010, 2:01 pmzuch says:
Authoritarianism: (n) 1). “Totalitarianism Lite™”
So torturing and killing dissidents and political opposition (and their families and friends and whoever else gets in the way) is just “authoritarianism” as long as they’re not telling you what kind of soap to buy? You have an interesting definition of the fundamentals of freedom. But … (and it’s a big “but”): Betcha you’d be the first to scream (literally) in an “authoritarian” regime that took issue with your politics (but cared less about your fondness for Irish Spring)….
Cheers,
April 7, 2010, 2:02 pmPhilC says:
The hallmark of the totalitarian, whether grand inquisitor, commisar, mullah, or McCarthyist is right belief, enforced by government power.
April 7, 2010, 2:03 pmFederal Farmer says:
At the risk of missing subtle sarcasm, I’ll agree with you on this. I’ve tried to keep out of this poo-flinging-my-dictator-versus-your-dictator fight. However, since I’m not a right-winger perhaps my acquiescence isn’t comforting.
April 7, 2010, 2:10 pmzuch says:
Thank you. There is, I think, a fair bit of truth to that.
A FYI for all here: I’m not the commie in the family (it’s one of my sibs). I consider Communism (or as the sib would say, “Marxism”; they reject such as Billy Bragg for being “revisionist Trotskyites”) to be as much a religion as the more conventional ones. But then too, I consider Libertarianism to be much the same (particularly as espoused by that noted fiction writer, Ayn Rand). Same with dogmatic laissez faire capitalism (whose Gawd is some omnipotent Invisible Hand whose wisdom is infallible)….
Cheers,
April 7, 2010, 2:12 pmMartinned says:
The distinction does not imply any kind of moral ranking. Any regime is as bad as it is, regardless of what kind of tag we assign it. As Vercingetorix noted in his now deleted comment (it was quite rude), Saddam may have been a socialist instead of a fascist. But the answer to that question is irrelevant for our moral judgement of the man. Similarly, whether we consider a regime as totalitarian or “just” authoritarian is irrelevant for our moral judgement.
For classification purposes, yes, there is a difference between a country where the government locks up its political opponents and a country where the government locks up its political opponents and also tells you what kind of soap to buy. A totalitarian regime tries to acquire as much power as it can get, while a non-totalitarian authoritarian regime seeks as much power as it needs to avoid being overthrown, or as much as it needs to allow it to rob the country blind, etc.
The reason why we would make such a distinction is, for example, to trace it back to the underlying ideology. (Like I said before, it makes sense for a communist regime to be totalitarians. Fascists can also be totalitarian, but it doesn’t follow inevitably from their ideology.)
April 7, 2010, 2:12 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
zuch,
IC. New regimes “create” abuses, while old regime[s] let the old ones persist. What a blinding revelation.
Did you read the whole thing? It’s not “new regimes” vs. “old regimes,” but regimes that by and large let the populace alone vs. regimes that feel compelled to regulate anything and everything.
Your standard-issue Nasty Dictatorship basically wants to siphon up as much money as possible before the supply dries up. Will they kill any political opponents that look like a threat to that plan? Of course. Will they stifle press coverage that makes them look bad? Naturally. Will they strongarm anyone who seems likely to pose a threat to them? Need you ask?
What they will generally not do is put their political opponents in reeducation camps, set up cults of personality, and seal their borders so that no dissenters can leave the country. It is a distinction with a difference.
April 7, 2010, 2:14 pmzuch says:
Any cites or evidence for this proposition?
Cheers,
April 7, 2010, 2:17 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
Martinned,
A totalitarian regime tries to acquire as much power as it can get, while a non-totalitarian authoritarian regime seeks as much power as it needs to avoid being overthrown, or as much as it needs to allow it to rob the country blind, etc.
Very well put, sir. I think I’ll keep that graf by me.
[added] And I see zuch disagrees with me. Imagine that.
April 7, 2010, 2:18 pmzuch says:
No. I put back the context to make that clear. “[R]evolutionary” regimes are, pretty much of necessity, new regimes. The “traditional” regimes are the old one, the ones that have been in place. Hope that helps you figure out my point. Once you have done that, maybe you’d like to reconsider your reply.
Cheers,
April 7, 2010, 2:23 pmVercingetorix says:
I think it does matter. Leave aside that National Socialism and fascism originated on the left; I do not want to fight that battle at the current moment. A commenter above tried to banish Stalin as being just another Czar. And this joker is trying to pawn Baathist genocidaire Saddam Hussein off as being ‘right wing’. If the left jettisons every dictator and MurderDeathKill regime in their docket as being not-socialist-at-all, soon the only example of socialism left will be Sweden…and if they ever get death camps, down the memory hole it goes.
Leave aside National Socialism and fascism as originating on the left. I do not want to fight that battle at the current moment. A commenter above tried to banish Stalin as being just another Czar. And this joker is trying to pawn Baathist genocidaire Saddam Hussein off as being ‘right wing’.
As far as a criteria, I’m sure you could look at the government and economic relationship, as in Ilya’s update. This also probably captures many supposedly “right-wing” dictators too, so that’s why zuch and such are spinning so frantically to get the subject off of socialism itself and onto the concept of ‘right-wingy-ness.’
April 7, 2010, 2:24 pmzuch says:
I didn’t disagree. I simply asked for evidence. Or is this once again a C.L. Dodgson thing, not needing such?
Cheers,
April 7, 2010, 2:26 pmMartinned says:
Yes. It’s in the definitions we assigned to each tag. (We meaning the users of the english language generally, as well as political scientists, political philosophers, etc.)
This is the wikipedia definition I quoted earlier:
The attribute that you now have a problem with is the very last part.
Further “proof” is not possible. It’s simply a matter of proof by definition. You might as well as me to prove that communists want state control of the means of production. That proposition is by definition true, since it follows from the agreed upon (if not necessarily by you) definition of “communist”.
Here is what Merriam-Webster writes:
(My emphasis.)
BTW, my hardcopy dictionary, the New Oxford Dictionary of 1998, doesn’t have this element, at least not explicitly: “totalitarian: of or relating to a system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state”.
April 7, 2010, 2:30 pmVercingetorix says:
Yeah, I requested it go. I’m trying to extract myself from this brier patch, one tar-heavy heave after another. My patience, never in abundance, is rapidly waning with every subdivision of these hairs.
April 7, 2010, 2:31 pmzuch says:
FauxSnooze. WhirledNutzDaily. ClownHall. Texas School Board.
“Beck”. “Palin”. “Hannity” (and his traveling road show: “You’re a real American!” “Thank you! And so are you!”).
Cheers,
April 7, 2010, 2:31 pmMartinned says:
Fair enough. We certainly want to avoid the No True Scotsman fallacy. Then again, do you have any information about the degree to which the state controlled the means of production in Saddam’s Iraq? (Other than the oil industry, presumably.) My sense is that the government wasn’t controlling any other industry than oil and the usual public utilities. In that case, Saddam’s Iraq is objectively not an example of communism/socialism.
April 7, 2010, 2:34 pmVercingetorix says:
Well, you definitely have a Mad Hatter thing going on.
April 7, 2010, 2:34 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
zuch,
“[R]evolutionary” regimes are, pretty much of necessity, new regimes. The “traditional” regimes are the old one, the ones that have been in place. Hope that helps you figure out my point. Once you have done that, maybe you’d like to reconsider your reply.
I rather gathered from the rest of the piece that by “traditional autocrats” Kirkpatrick didn’t mean despots that had been there forever, but despots that fit the old “Give me lots of money and keep me safe” profile, as opposed to the new “Let’s redesign society!” profile. There’s nothing in the laws of nature that precludes factually “new” despots fitting the factually “traditional” profile, and in fact you will probably come across it just about anywhere you look at a despotism established after this article was written.
April 7, 2010, 2:37 pmzuch says:
I think I addressed that here.
But funny thing: Neither of the above proffered definitions, however, includes your claim: “A totalitarian regime tries to acquire as much power as it can get, while a non-totalitarian authoritarian regime seeks as much power as it needs to avoid being overthrown, or as much as it needs to allow it to rob the country blind, etc.” I agree that totalitarianism and authoritarianism may differ, but I would say that the principal difference is only one of degree.
Cheers,
April 7, 2010, 2:41 pmzuch says:
“I will state my conclusion but won’t be bothered to back it up.”
Thanks for the productive … ummm, “debate”.
Cheers,
April 7, 2010, 2:44 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
zuch,
FauxSnooze. WhirledNutzDaily. ClownHall. Texas School Board.
I guess these are the special American reeducation camps that you can ignore completely if you want to.
(Or, yes, leave Texas, if you can’t stand the Texas School Board and are convinced it’s brainwashing your children.)
April 7, 2010, 2:44 pmjukeboxgrad says:
vercingetorix
Oops, sorry, my mistake. I got you mixed up with someone else who bears a striking resemblance to you. Nevertheless, you said this:
In other words, all things considered, he really wasn’t so bad. This is still minimizing his evil, and a form of apologetics. So the point remains.
By the way, what kind of “idiot” posts the same sentences twice, on a blog that allows for both preview and editing?
That’s what happens when you comment at 2:24 pm.
==================
michelle:
That’s what happens when you make unwarranted assumptions. How do you know what time zone I’m posting from, or what my sleep schedule is? Do you make unwarranted assumptions only when you post at 11:26 am, or do you do it 24/7?
April 7, 2010, 2:44 pmMartinned says:
What I wrote: “as much power as it can get”
What the definitions said: “regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible” and “strict control of all aspects of the life and productive capacity of the nation”.
Now even I’m starting to think you’re nitpicking.
April 7, 2010, 2:46 pmzuch says:
Do you deny they’re engaged in a full-fledged attempt at “re-education”?
As for FauxSnooze, etc.: They are not mandatory … but they are pervasive.
Cheers,
April 7, 2010, 2:46 pmzuch says:
OIC. Perhaps the “authoritarian” regimes simply aren’t quite as competent.
Cheers,
April 7, 2010, 2:49 pmVercingetorix says:
Without digging, no, I do not know which industries the Baath party controlled. And that’s a fairly decent point of contention. On the other hand, the point of the original article was how socialist revolutions are both destructive and give rise to further destruction.
Saddam emerged from the Arab Socialism as Stalin emerged from Leninism. I don’t think it matters if neither Stalin nor Saddam were faithful socialists, or the USSR or Iraq were proper theoretical socialist states that meet bullet-point criteria on what pure socialism is.
The point, I figure, is this: The revolution was disastrous, the regime was catastrophic and the inevitable strongman apocalyptic.
April 7, 2010, 2:52 pmMenshevik says:
Zuch misses the following important distinction between the right wing authoritarian dictatorships he mentions and the totalitarian-aspiring dictatorships of the left and right.
In right wing dictatorships, typically (though naturally not true in every case), one has to be an opponent of the regime or more mildly, speak out against it in order to be imprisoned or otherwise repressed. I am more familiar with the history of the Stalinist USSR and its satellites than other systems, but I know that the following was true in China during the anti-Rightist campaigns of the 1950s and the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s-1970s, is still true in North Korea, and suspect that it has been the case in every Leninist system. That is, entire classes of people (and not just economic classes) were repressed REGARDLESS of any actual opposition to the regime. Crucially, this usually included the descendents of those so treated. Please read Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago and Li Zhisui’s The Private Life of Chairman Mao for examples.
April 7, 2010, 2:52 pmzuch says:
Who’s trying to “jettison” any regime? Oh. Right. Prof. Somin. He jettisoned Sweden et al. But to say that “Totalitarian socialist regimes are totalitarian. Wonder why?” kind of destroys the point of Prof. Somin’s post.
Cheers,
April 7, 2010, 2:54 pmzuch says:
Then she should have said that. Or alternatively, said that all “traditional autocrats” were of the “Give me lots of money and keep me safe” mold, and proved that with evidence. She should also show how Russia dachas and Zils fit the “let’s redesign society” appellation.
Cheers,
April 7, 2010, 2:59 pmMartinned says:
Or maybe they are rational dictators in the sense of the wonderful model by Mancur Olson, who described and modelled them as “stationary bandits” in his book Power and Prosperity. The idea is that they are just so oppressive that they maximise the net present value of their total theft. Being too opressive destroys the economy, meaning that there will be nothing left to steal. Being not opressive enough, on the other hand, gets you kicked out, which also ruins the stealing opportunities. The result is a dictator who is authoritarian but still quite beneficial for the economy – assuming he is confident of his ability to stay in power.
On the other hand, a dictator who is not in it for the money, but is instead motivated by some form of communist ideology, will take an approach to opression that is qualitatively different, which is why we give such opression a different name: totalitarianism.
April 7, 2010, 3:00 pmMartinned says:
You’re right here.
April 7, 2010, 3:02 pmVercingetorix says:
Second point first: I’m over it.
First point second: Pinochet killed 1500 people under his regime. Stalin killed at least twenty million. Stalin killed 13 thousand times more people than Pinochet. Five orders of magnitude more.
Pol Pot killed 1.5 million people. Pol Pot killed one thousand times more than Pinochet. 3 orders of magnitude.
Now, I’m sick of racing thoroughbred murderers. Unless you have 13,000 more Pinochets, um, the left wins this particular horse race.
April 7, 2010, 3:06 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
jukeboxgrad,
That’s what happens when you make unwarranted assumptions. How do you know what time zone I’m posting from, or what my sleep schedule is? Do you make unwarranted assumptions only when you post at 11:26 am, or do you do it 24/7?
I don’t know. But, honestly, “I was up too late” is a better excuse than “I was so [insert word of choice here] that I couldn’t tell the indented text from the rest of it, and therefore chewed out another commenter for something s/he didn’t say.
April 7, 2010, 3:07 pmzuch says:
You misspelled “nationalism”. See more here.
Cheers,
April 7, 2010, 3:07 pmzuch says:
Kind of like the native people in Guatamala, eh?
Cheers,
April 7, 2010, 3:09 pmMartinned says:
The Ba’ath movement (is and) was both Pan-Arabic and socialist, so I see nothing wrong with Vercingetorix’s statement.
April 7, 2010, 3:11 pmVercingetorix says:
And the familiar nubbin at last comes out, after how many comments? Socialism is, of course, international, and even if a regime fits a socialist economic order to a tee, unless it supports the internationale movement, t’ain’t socialism, padre.
Right. Socialism is nothing, ’tis everything, and it’s awesome!
April 7, 2010, 3:14 pmzuch says:
You assume that the interest of the economy (and even more so, the populace) are identical with the economic interests of the rulers. May be true, but not always (as we see even here in the U.S.).
Why would a communist ideologue not be “in it for the money”? They may be misguided or even outright wrong, but aren’t they if it for the “greater good of the people”? Why would such exclude the mundane standard of living and individual well-being?
Cheers,
April 7, 2010, 3:16 pmzuch says:
In the second link provided was an explanation of differences between “Arab socialism” and “socialism” elsewhere.
I don’t deny that Saddam was perhaps a “socialist” in a very general sense, but I see that even you have provided information above that his “socialism” (at least as implemented) was not of any significance; certainly not much greater if at all from those countries in Europe that have national energy companies.
Cheers,
April 7, 2010, 3:20 pmPhilC says:
Are you saying only communists can be totalitarian? That seems wrong.
April 7, 2010, 3:21 pmJoseph Slater says:
Menshevik: Unless you count, say, Nazi Germany as a “right wing” dictatorship, which and I most folks do (J. Goldberg’s unconvincing book to the contrary notwithstanding). Because the Nazis certainly rounded up folks not based on their explicit opposition to the government but rather in their membership in a group. See also apartheid South Africa, which would be hard to classify as “left wing.”
But I still don’t get the “dictators of this stripe are better/worse than dictators of that stripe” argument. To me, this thread was about “socialism,” and went horribly wrong when it didn’t give a decent definition of that term. Oh well.
April 7, 2010, 3:24 pmzuch says:
Fine. But the variation in the extent of the carnage (even ignoring the “moral relativistic” nature of such) says nothing about Prof. Somin’s point about the essential nature of “socialism” in producing such carnage. If it happens elsewhere outside of (the carefully delimited) “socialist” regimes that Prof. Somin wants to highlight, he at least should ask why, and whether that changes his answer WRT the “socialist” regimes.
Cheers,
April 7, 2010, 3:26 pmMartinned says:
How much money did Stalin park in Swiss bank accounts?
I wrote “quite beneficial for the economy”. Obviously, the economic isterest of society would be served even more by a liberal democracy. That is the problem that Chine, for example, will run into (and is already running into).
April 7, 2010, 3:28 pmzuch says:
See my reply here.
Cheers,
April 7, 2010, 3:30 pmMartinned says:
The paragraph you quoted was argued from the Olson model, meaning that it was an economics-style simplification. In general, I’d say that the link between communism and totalitarianism is quite direct, meaning that few communist regimes would be able to escape it, while other authoritarian ideologies do not necessarily “require” totalitarianism in the same way. That said, you can imagine a fascist war-focused ideology where the government feels that it has to dominate all of society in order to focus it towards war. That would be totalitarian alright.
April 7, 2010, 3:31 pmzuch says:
Slightly OT, but this brings to mind my reading of (a free sample of) Larry Schweikart’s “Patriot’s History of the United States”, where his apologia for European colonization of the New World — in response to such as Howard Zinn’s “People’s History” criticism of such colonialism/imperialism — mentions that it wasn’t all for the gold and silver, but the Spanish put up missions all over the place, and tried to bring the Gospel to the New World as well. Big-hearted of them, wouldn’t you say? I guess their plundering of the Aztecs and Incas wasn’t all that bad as they did so with the best of intentions as well….
Cheers,
April 7, 2010, 3:37 pmscattergood says:
Your pretty funny. You bring up Chile, I argue against you bringing up Chile and you don’t even refute the facts I bring up. Instead you say ‘hey, I don’t ONLY bring up Chile’.
Well, whoopdie doo.
Your other examples, Guatamala, Hondurus, etc. are not examples of totalitarian capitalists. They are examples of totalitarian oligopolies.
What you have refused to face is that your answers basically say ‘well non populist socialist countries can be totalitarian too!’. So what. That doesn’t diminish the the fact that the coercive power of gov’t in the economy pulls it towards authoritarianism and totalitarianism.
Cheers,
April 7, 2010, 3:52 pmjukeboxgrad says:
michelle:
It was a mistake, and it was a pretty trivial one, especially given the other similar statements he made, and especially given that he was quoting the statement approvingly, which is nearly as good as making it himself. So there’s no need for an excuse, other than the condition of being human.
On the other hand, something that does need an excuse is calling someone an idiot for making a mistake. And something else that needs an excuse is chiming in to offer a pat on the back to the person who just called someone an idiot for making a mistake.
April 7, 2010, 4:00 pmzuch says:
Wow. A True Believer™ You might have added “free market economy”, but someone else will surely pipe up. It may well be true, but you ought to support such assertions, just as much as Prof. Somin should support his assertion that socialism inevitably involves totalitarianism.
Cheers,
April 7, 2010, 4:09 pmzuch says:
Yes, that’s true. Because it’s true. I brought up Chile, but I brought up other countries as well. It is the people defending Pinochet that keep harping on Chile alone (ignoring the other examples of non-socialist authoritarian/totalitarian gummints). And saying that Chile doesn’t count (for various reasons). Hey, that’s what you attempted; saying that Pinochet’s reforms came later. But as I stated, that hardly disproves my point that RW regimes are authoritarian/totalitarian, and as I stated, this even removes the excuse that such authoritarianism is necessary/excusable because it brings economic benefits.
Assuming arguendo that what you say is true, that hardly refutes the fact that non-socialist countries may be authoritarian if not outright totalitarian. But what else is an oligopoly but “capitalism for the rich and famous”? Wouldn’t it be unconstitooshunal or sumptin’ to take away the ‘property’ of these privileged few (that we helped/installed/etc.)?
The fact is that we either set up or propped up the specific gummints in these countries, and enabled their “coercive power” (and often with the interests of the likes of United Fruit in mind). It wasn’t that their governments as they existed spontaneously developed coercive powers and they thus went to totalitarianism. It was that the specific people/powrs involved deliberately set up coercive (read: “authoritarian”) gummints for the express purposes of protecting their financial and societal interests. Funny how that happens. And it has nothing to do with “socialism” (except perhaps as a defence against any such tendencies, as one commenter above revealingly admitted).
Cheers,
April 7, 2010, 4:32 pmChris Travers says:
This is exactly right. The problem is with dictatorship, not socialism.
However, let me ask an interesting question: is dictatorship always bad? Or can it be a useful stage for a country to go through?
April 7, 2010, 4:55 pmzuch says:
Depends what the meaning of the word “bad” is. It may be that parental discipline is seen as “bad’ by some (children in particular), and certain forms may even be destructive or counterproductive in some instances.
I’d note that in both the military and in the corporate world, there seems to be a certain fondness for “direction from on high”, and some people think this may be the most efficient way to do things, or even the only practical way. There may be philosophical issues WRT who gets to be the “boss”, and even practical ones in this respect, but that hardly changes the “efficiency” calculations once such is in place.
This is a very open-ended question of yours, with a noticeable lack of specificity of both terms and factual specifics. Also missing is any mention of any alternatives that might be compared against. I would hesitate to give you even my opinion on such until such deficiencies are remedied; such would be premature, regardless of any philosophical inclinations of mine at first blush.
I will go on record and state that torturing and deliberately killing innocent people is always wrong. I think that there is no conceivable circumstance under which such could be morally justified. YMMV, of course.
Cheers,
April 7, 2010, 5:13 pmFederal Farmer says:
Socialism is flawed at its core. The level of altruism needed, if achieved, would eliminate the need for any government at all. Absent a utopian level of altruism, there is no other incentive to work besides the lash.
Just because some small European countries appro
ximate socialism and haven’t implemented forced labor does not disprove my assertion. Low population and special circumstances such as abundant high-demand resources can tilt the result.
Likewise, arguing that non-socialistic regimes meet or exceed the brutality of socialist regimes also does not disprove my assertion.
April 7, 2010, 5:39 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
jukeboxgrad,
It was a mistake, and it was a pretty trivial one, especially given the other similar statements he made, and especially given that he was quoting the statement approvingly, which is nearly as good as making it himself. So there’s no need for an excuse, other than the condition of being human.
“He” (the author of the comment) was CatoRenasci. He quoted Vercingetorix, but the “reluctant dictator” bit was his own. How that makes Vercingetorix responsible in any way for the “reluctant dictator” comment I leave to the student.
April 7, 2010, 6:20 pmzuch says:
But it does call into question Prof. Somin’s insinuation that “socialism” is inevitably brutal. It is a fact that non-socialistic systems have been brutal, so obviously there are some things that lead to brutality other than socialism. Given that, it then becomes incumbent for such as Prof. Somin to show that something in “socialism” does inevitably result in this, and not just the same factors that were present in the non-socialist but nonetheless brutal regimes. Instead, Prof. Somin goes on to speculate on which of three factors result in brutality in socialist regimes, rather than identifying these factors for all known instances of brutality, and then showing that one or more of them are inherent in, and peculiar to, all instances of socialism. Of the factors/causes Prof. Somin considers, the first two candidates are neither inherent in nor unique to socialism, near as I can tell, and the third is also not unique to socialism, even if that is indeed the (or a) root cause of the brutality.
Cheers,
April 7, 2010, 6:37 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
zuch,
I think there is a difference in kind. “Non-socialistic systems” have indeed been brutal, but the rapid establishment of a prison-camp system and of an omnipresent surveillance system does seem to be a socialist innovation. Of course, now that’s been done and shown to (ahem) “work,” there are bound to be imitators.
April 7, 2010, 7:06 pmChris Brown says:
My view is that many people who believe in socialism have already “idealized” the enemy. THEY are just living their lives, and should/will be left alone, but the “rich” & the “capitalists” have to be reigned in by any means necessary. That’s why there is an immediate reckoning of sorts that targets certain entities, like kulaks, or intellectuals.
April 7, 2010, 7:51 pmMenshevik says:
Michelle, a little late, but I liked your citation of C.S. Lewis.
Also, in weighing up the pros and cons of dictatorships, we mustn’t forget that while Mussolini may have made the trains run on time, the USSR produced wonderful violinists and cellists…not to mention trained bears.
April 7, 2010, 8:13 pmzuch says:
I dunno. I think maybe the Tribunal of the Holy Office of the Inquisition might have beat them to it by a couple of centuries. ;-)
Cheers,
April 7, 2010, 8:35 pmjukeboxgrad says:
michelle:
I was a little unclear with the pronouns in my last comment, so I’ll be more explicit this time.
Yes, that phrase was used originally by CatoRenasci here.
In a comment here, Vercingetorix quoted CatoRenasci approvingly. That is, Vercingetorix approvingly quoted CatoRenasci’s statement that Pinochet was “a piker” and “a reluctant dictator.” Likewise, Vercingetorix approvingly quoted CatoRenasci’s claim that it is “leftist mythology” to describe Pinochet as “horrid.”
All those statements by CatoRenasci prompted Vercingetorix to chime in and give CatoRenasci a big friendly pat on the back. So “the ‘reluctant dictator’ bit” was originated by CatoRenasci, but Vercingetorix gave that “bit” his wholehearted approval.
When I decide to stand up and applaud in response to a particular comment, that is definitely a “way” in which I become “responsible” for that comment. Especially since I am free to keep my mouth shut, and I am free to disassociate myself from any part of the comment I don’t like, and I am free to cite only the parts of the comment I do like. Vercingetorix quoted CatoRenasci in full, and approvingly, even though CatoRenasci’s overall point was this: Pinochet really wasn’t as bad as leftists say he was. That is, CatoRenasci offered apologetics for Pinochet, and this prompted Vercingetorix to stand up and cheer.
And then when I criticized the “reluctant dictator” phrase, the two-faced Vercingetorix suddenly pretended that he didn’t approve of those words, and that it was unfair for me to assume that he did approve of them. Even though he had quoted them approvingly.
“I leave to the student” why you would find all this hard to understand. I also “leave to the student” why you would approve of someone using the word “idiot” to describe someone who made a trivial mistake.
Next up, I suppose you will claim that you are not “in any way” responsible for his use of that word, even though you responded by saying this: “indeed.”
April 8, 2010, 7:48 amMartinned says:
Well, my remark was concerning the political system that allows the economy to function best. The answer to that is liberal democracy of the European/Anglo-Saxon type. That answer is indeed obvious, not to mention supported by decades worth of institutional economic and economic-historic research. A good place to start is the work of Douglass North.
April 8, 2010, 10:08 amzuch says:
No. And even the evidence for such — “obvious” as it may be to you despite the “cum hoc ergo propter hoc” nature of such — would apply strictly to European/Anglo-Saxon countries, and should not, without more, be extrapolated to countries that are quite differently situated.
Then there is the difficult question as to what constitutes “the economy [] function[ing] best”…. Was the early Spanish colonial economy a model of efficiency, for instance?
Cheers,
April 8, 2010, 12:35 pmzuch says:
martinned:
From North’s Nobel lecture:
North says that achieving rational markets (and thus greatest efficiency) requires information; that is to say, knowledge (as well as requiring that factors leading to irrational choices be mitigated). How to achieve that best is another thing entirely.
One thing to note is the “Darwinian” nature of North’s argument, of course: That “competition” and “reward”["reproductive fitness"] will naturally weed out inefficiencies once confounding influences are removed or ameliorated (this is basic capitalist theory). But Darwinian theory is a relative theory: It doesn’t say that that the optimal design for an eye will be achieved, given enough selection and time. It simply says that an eye, if adaptive, will be selected over having no eyes. But as we know, the eye is far from an objectively optimum solution; it is for the most part the best nature could come up with, starting from the place it did and with the materials at hand and the time available. It is (an approximation of) a local maximum.
Also of note is the fact that a “liberal democracy” is not necessarily the best vehicle of increasing knowledge and reducing the influence the influence of irrational behaviours. Liberal democracies can (and do) in fact tolerate prejudices and irrationality (and perhaps even give these more voice and influence than some other system of government). These may well persist in a liberal democracy despite any competitive pressure to eliminate them, in part because they persist for reasons other than pure market efficiency.
Cheers,
April 8, 2010, 1:17 pmRich Rostrom says:
Ricardo: You’re wrong. In a tolitarian state Radio Veritas would not be shut down – it would be operated by the State Ministry of Culture, and would broadcast exactly what the regime ordered. No one would have lined the streets for Aquino’s funeral, because they would be afraid of being denounced to the regime by neighbors or relatives. Ramos and Enrile would not have turned against Marcos; they (and all other military and police officials) would have been repeatedly vetted for complete loyalty to the regime, with all potential dissidents ruthlessly purged. Aquino would not have murdered in that extraordinarily obvious way. He would have been arrested after a “terrorist act” (perhaps the killing of some Marcos crony who was getting too ambitious). When brought to trial, he would plead guilty and make a detailed confession, after which he would be shot. Marcos would have little reason to fear Aquino’s leadership of political opposition; all organized political opposition would have been forcibly suppressed long before, with Aquino’s potential allies all executed or imprisoned.
As for Pinochet: in 1973, he was 57 years old, and had been a career officer of the Chilean Army for 37 years. During all that time he never showed any political ambitions.
Compare this to Lenin, Mao, and Castro, who made themselves leaders of revolutionary socialist movements which had the declared intent of seizing power by force, fought for years to achieve that goal, and then (also as previously intended) wielded total power to carry out a total remaking of society.
April 8, 2010, 5:25 pmzuch says:
That makes his murders just A-OK, I guess.
First time for everything, I guess.
Chalk up another Pinochet apologist. VC may lag some websites (maybe Freeperville and RedState) for such, but does have its share….
Cheers,
April 8, 2010, 8:04 pmRich Rostrom says:
I wrote: As for Pinochet: in 1973, he was 57 years old, and had been a career officer of the Chilean Army for 37 years.
Zuch wrote: That makes his murders just A-OK, I guess.
No, and I did not say that. It does suggest a slight difference between him and the socialist revolutionaries who spent their entire adult lives either fighting for dictatorial power or using that power to implement Mankind’s Radiant Future (killing large numbers of people in the process).
BTW, are you on the payroll of the VRWC? That is, a right-wing “moby”: it seems hard to believe that such a perfect example of the morally obtuse and intellectually dishonest leftist is for real.
April 8, 2010, 9:53 pmA. Criminal says:
All governments are somewhat contrary to human nature (if they weren’t, there’d be no “need” for governments) but socialism, and its minor variants, fascism and communism, are necessarily oppressive because they’re *very* contrary to human nature. Socialism sorta kinda works for short periods of time in small, homogeneous populations where people feel related to each other; the famous-for-working northern European socialism will fail and die as their demographics change.
April 9, 2010, 10:34 amVercingetorix says:
I’ve also quoted yourself and that other idiot I’m too lazy to scroll up to catch his name (Zek or something). Rather than adding a Kennedy-assassination style subplot to this whole thing, just admit it: You screwed up.
April 9, 2010, 11:52 amzuch says:
“Moral relativism! Moral relativism!!!”
You’re one to talk about moral obtuseness (and perhaps intellectual honesty as well). See immediately above.
Cheers,
April 9, 2010, 2:21 pmjukeboxgrad says:
vercingetorix:
Have you read the thread? I acknowledged my mistake, and apologized for it, as soon as it was pointed out.
When are you going to admit that you supported CatoRenasci’s apologetics for Pinochet and then pretended that you didn’t?
April 9, 2010, 2:56 pmVercingetorix says:
I know, in your fever-brain, you think you have me over the barrel. But you are demonstrating that you cannot read. In the very specific post you slobber over yourself at great length to quote someone else, I affirm nothing. I add a snide observation about Castro and Battiste, and how again you and zuch are ruining the windows through excessive licking.
I mean, seriously, you manage to quote two other people and not me while talking about me. Are you retarded? If you are, hey, I’m sorry. I am sorry. Everyone that reads this, I am sorry for wasting my time batting around little Corky here. Sorry.
I’m not repudiating Cato either. Of all the monsters of this past century, all the Saddams, Hitlers, Stalins, Lenins, Maos, Pol Pots, Papa Doc Duvaliers, Idi Amins, the Ayatollahs, and so on, Pinochet (Pinochet!) is not worth getting lathered up about. Che killed more people than Pinochet. There are far worse monsters under the bed. You just don’t want to deal with those monsters, because, it seems, some of them have an uncomfortable family resemblance to your – as a progressive – movement.
Unless comparing hard facts is somehow apologetics, ain’t no apologetics there. Read, for the love of Almighty God.
That’s all I have to say. Please, feel free to posit your 11 page grassy-knoll theory over how I sleep with Pinochet-patterned bed sheets and a cuddly Hitler-bear.
April 9, 2010, 3:58 pmjukeboxgrad says:
Good luck convincing anyone that when you quoted CatoRenasci in full here you were not expressing support for what he said.
I did indeed quote you, here.
You have accused me of not quoting you, even though I did, and you have accused me of not taking responsibility for a trivial mistake I made, even though I had already taken responsibility for that mistake. The one whose reading comprehension needs work is you.
April 9, 2010, 8:40 pmNothing found for Bad-breath-herbal-remedies says:
[...] The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Competing Explanations for … [...]
April 10, 2010, 11:11 am