Ask a Red III

[ReindeerThistle]

Initial questions:

(1.) What individual rewards are there for hard work?

I'm about to get old school Marxist-Leninist, here. You can't jump from capitalism to communism. Capitalism has class contradictions which are not resolved until -- under socialism -- the working class replaces the ruling class. So, I will answer from thw grid of life under socialism:

What individual rewards are there in current capitalist economy for hard work? The US farm worker who harvests the food we eat has a life expectancy of 49 years, and earns usually less than $10,000 a year. They work 10 to 12 hours a day during harvest season and when they are not in the fields, they do child care, attendant care work and other service work. About 50% of the US population is living in poverty.

The first stage of society post a socialist revolution is to establish socialism. People will no work for free, so they will work for pay -- but that will vary form society to society. Chinese workers in 1959 were not making equivalent wages to Soviet workers in 1927. The basic tenent of socialism is "If you work, you eat." (Stalin, from "Speech to the First Conference of Stakhanovites") That is, you will not be denied the fruits of your labor if you work and if you work harder, you are rewarded. If you can't work, are elderly, disabled, etc., you will be taken care of -- see my answers to your points 3 and 4 below.

(2.) How are scarce goods allocated most efficiently in the absence of a (free) price system?
[note: this question is to both market and anti-market communists]

See http://www.radio4all.net/index.php/program/2095 and listen (4 hours) to the Fidel Castro Speech at the Riverside Church 9/8/2000 and 9/9/2000: he explains how Cuba deals with scarce goods.

(3.) If there is a market, how can "labor hours" be used as a mechanism to efficiently establish a price for goods?
(a.) How do you account for factors other than labor time, such as scarcity and quality?
(b.) How do you incorporate the cost of capital into the price of finished goods if labor time is used in place of a free price system?

(4.) If there is a market, what happens when a business fails?
(a.) Who owns the business?
(b.) Do the business owners own the physical land upon which the business is situated and if so, what subsequently happens to the land?

In socialism there are markets. No need to establish "labor hours" for trade, as workers will get paid. Why not? Pay for work did not change when Roman Dinaris were replaced by Italian Lira, which was in turn replaced by the Euro. Payment for labour is as old as labor and money. In this case, the government could establish a minimum wage. See Lenin's "The State and Revolution" on that. When a business fails, the workers and the business owner will find other work, There will be plenty of work to do.

Who owns the business? That depends. Utilities and transport may be state-owned, as well as other major productive industry, but that can depend on the situation. In Russia, there were millionaires who participated in the rebuilding of the country, and there were millionaires created, too. In China, there are billionaires. Yes, China is socialist -- critics and supporters in country agree with that. The socialist government could buy the industries at market value and turn them over to the people, or the industries can continue to operate (severely curtailed by the government strictures and living wage statutes) side by side with state-owned factories.
Venezuela, for instance, gave grants to cooperatives to start their own manufacturing to compete with privately-held businesses and most are thiving.

RE: land: ownership will depend on the situation. In China there is no inheritance - but then none is needed, as yet.

(5.) Can residential land be owned and if so, under which circumstances may it be expropriated? Example: I own a plot of land upon which my house is situated and it has been decided that a shoe factory is going to be built, but my house and the land lie within the proposed factory's building site.

My friend, you will not lose your land to a shoe factory under socialism. In the United States, we have thousands of dormant factories that can be put into operation. In Japan, ditto. I'm sure.

Under US law, the government can take your land at any time, as long as they compensate you. But lately, I have seen municipal governments use this for the good of private enterprise. THAT would not likely happen under the socialism I want to build.

(6.) What happens if I choose to reject the communist system and issue currency not tied to labor hours? (or, in the case of an anti-market communism, what happens if I try to establish market relations?)

We will not likely see communism in our lifetimes, and by the time the world does see communism, people will have a different mindset. They will look back at today with the same bewilderment a modern Catholic (like me) looks at the Spanish Inquisition -- HOW DID WE EVER SURVIVE?

Besides, can you issue your own currency under capitalism? Why is this an issue?

Thanks for the query.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

Can I become a communist, I'm not ignorant when it comes to sociology, history, politics, and so on, in fact I'm good at it. What makes you communist, is it you just say I'm Communist or do you have to believe in certain "policies"?

Not to step on Traitorfish, but Fidel Castro said this: "You can call yourself an eagle without having a single feather, but only a revolutionary fighter can call oneself a communist"

Look at my other posts for some communist positions. I know yours was an old post, but humor me.

 

[Agent327]

Not to step on Traitorfish, but Fidel Castro said this: "You can call yourself an eagle without having a single feather, but only a revolutionary fighter can call oneself a communist"

That's interesting: it then follows from Castro's own words that Guevara was a Communist, while Castro himself ceased to be the moment he seized power. (Also of note is that he only claimed to be Communist after the revolution took over Cuba; during the years of struggle on Cuba there were little hints to this effect.)

You should prove such bombastic statements, luiz.

Actually, it's the other way around. Dialectic materialism isn't a scientific theory and isn't used in science.

Yeah, that's consistent with what I've read. I was interested for a while in how a bunch of quantitative studies on adopted children and how they come to be rather more similar to their adopted parents than biological parents. That doesn't prove that 'human nature' doesn't exist; but it does suggest that it's a rather weaker force than environmental factors.

Since adopted children are nurtured by their adopted parents instead of their biological parents it rather confirms both nature and nurture.

There has not been "communism" on this planet since the stone age and "primitive communism." Marx points out that the history of hitherto existing societies is the history of class struggle.

Actually, that's one of his theses. Whether it is true is another matter; historians - including Marxist historians - generally tend to dismiss the idea. (I'm not sure what the Stone Age has to do with Communism, but soit.)

I look at all capitalist economies as negative. However, it does not harm the movement when 23 million Norwegians can take a two-week vacation in the tropics on doctors' orders. But Norway, et al, still have their problems. The system cannot sustain itself forever, even Nelson Rockefeller knew that.

That wasn't the question, however. You seem to ignore the fact (brought up by Domen) that purely capitalist economies no longer exist - in the sense of laisser faire economies. Most modern economies are mixed; the purely capitalist societies of the mid-19th centuries no longer exist. Which is what Domen's question referred to.

Speaking of Hitler, if he hadn't come along, the ruling class of Germany would have created someone like him. But, no, Marx did not predict anythings, he examined social and economic trends.

Hitler wasn't a product of the ruling class; he was lower middle class. (And people aren't "created" by class, they are born into one. There is a distinct difference.)

I was under the impression that the idea that capitalism will succumb under it's own internal pressure would count as a prediction, by the way. Marx seemed to be unaware of the conjunctural trends, where economies proceed following cycles of growth and recession. His labour factor concept has proven quite succesful, however.

 

[Masada]

Since adopted children are nurtured by their adopted parents instead of their biological parents it rather confirms both nature and nurture.

Yeah, this doesn't make much sense.

 

[Mouthwash]

I'm about to get old school Marxist-Leninist, here. You can't jump from capitalism to communism. Capitalism has class contradictions which are not resolved until -- under socialism -- the working class replaces the ruling class. So, I will answer from thw grid of life under socialism:

What individual rewards are there in current capitalist economy for hard work? The US farm worker who harvests the food we eat has a life expectancy of 49 years, and earns usually less than $10,000 a year. They work 10 to 12 hours a day during harvest season and when they are not in the fields, they do child care, attendant care work and other service work. About 50% of the US population is living in poverty.

Ah, the old time-tested method of argument by assertion.

It's not that I'm looking for a fight (OK, I am), but those statistics seem... highly dubious.

 

[Masada]

It's not that I'm looking for a fight, but that statistic seems... highly dubious.

Not at all.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

That's interesting: it then follows from Castro's own words that Guevara was a Communist, while Castro himself ceased to be the moment he seized power. (Also of note is that he only claimed to be Communist after the revolution took over Cuba; during the years of struggle on Cuba there were little hints to this effect.)

Actually, it's the other way around. Dialectic materialism isn't a scientific theory and isn't used in science.

Since adopted children are nurtured by their adopted parents instead of their biological parents it rather confirms both nature and nurture.

Actually, that's one of his theses. Whether it is true is another matter; historians - including Marxist historians - generally tend to dismiss the idea. (I'm not sure what the Stone Age has to do with Communism, but soit.)

That wasn't the question, however. You seem to ignore the fact (brought up by Domen) that purely capitalist economies no longer exist - in the sense of laisser faire economies. Most modern economies are mixed; the purely capitalist societies of the mid-19th centuries no longer exist. Which is what Domen's question referred to.

Hitler wasn't a product of the ruling class; he was lower middle class. (And people aren't "created" by class, they are born into one. There is a distinct difference.)

I was under the impression that the idea that capitalism will succumb under it's own internal pressure would count as a prediction, by the way. Marx seemed to be unaware of the conjunctural trends, where economies proceed following cycles of growth and recession. His labour factor concept has proven quite succesful, however.

Dear sir or madam, you may be right.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

Hitler wasn't a product of the ruling class; he was lower middle class. (And people aren't "created" by class, they are born into one. There is a distinct difference.)

I was under the impression that the idea that capitalism will succumb under it's own internal pressure would count as a prediction, by the way. Marx seemed to be unaware of the conjunctural trends, where economies proceed following cycles of growth and recession. His labour factor concept has proven quite succesful, however.

Read William Shirer's Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. While Hitler preached populism and socialism, he courted he wealthy ruling class and offered them a strategy for getting Germany out of its depression. Fascism is a tactic of Capitalism. You do not have to BE from the rulin class to do the work of the ruling class. You are doing it on this post.

Marx and I are not saying capitalism will collapse under it's own weight. Au contraire! That would be undialectic. Rather, by something being "unsustainable" objectively, those subjective to sustaining it work to keep it going. Like you are.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

Ah, the old time-tested method of argument by assertion.

It's not that I'm looking for a fight (OK, I am), but those statistics seem... highly dubious.

Dear sir or madam, you are wrong. I work with farm workers, I know what they make and how long they live.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I think, being human and of a certain age, I can make a rather accurate assessment of what human nature entails.

Being of a certain age, I should expect that you don't require your ideas to be pre-chewed before you eat them. However, since I am gracious, I will do this for you nonetheless. You look around you, and see how people behave, and think about how you would behave, in any given situation. In real situations, in imagined ones. No one is denying that you are correct in those assertions. But that is not human nature! Rather, you might say that is not all of human nature. The Marxist position is that human nature is malleable, that morals and motivations, and all the things that influence someone's behavior and thought in society, are created by society itself. You exist in a capitalist society. So does everyone around you. So for you to look around you, see people behaving in a certain way, and conclude that this is the only way people can behave, is extremely myopic. Further, it does not begin to disprove the position that different societies mold people differently. Rather, it proves it!

But following your argument, people have to be educated by "good" teachers to be good people. It then follows that these teachers have to be good. It still revolves about some endemic goodness in human nature.

It need not be direct propaganda. People are just as much shaped by their situation in society. People are greedy not merely because they are taught that "greed is good" (indeed, how many children are really taught this? All the lessons I was taught were communistic in nature: share, leave things better than when you arrived, be kind to everyone, and by all measures I grew up in a conservative culture), but because events in their life dictate that they must provide for themselves first, because no one else will. Capitalism, by its very nature, forces people to be self-concerned first. I do not deny that this is a baser instinct of people; we can look at Maslow's Heirarchy of Needs for that, but this supposed "highest order of human existence" leaves nearly all people wallowing in the self-concern mode. It does not allow them, be they proletarian or capitalist, to think beyond themselves, because the moment you stop thinking about yourself, you become in danger. Charity, community thinking, these things are often luxuries. My girlfriend works for a non-profit, and seeks out donors on a regular basis. They're all wealthy-as-balls socialites with literally nothing better to spend all their money on.

In socialism, everyone provides for everyone, so we are free to worry about things other than ourselves. This is not to say that the self is unimportant; we are not Fascists, after all. We believe that self-actualization can best be served by communal action, rather than atomization and withdrawal. And this will in turn be served by people who have learned to behave in such a way, because their society no longer requires them to think personally and eschew the rest of the world's problems and needs in order to survive.

But I appreciate the Trotski quote; I was unaware that he could be so philosophical.

Most people are often more than the political soundbites attributed to them. Stalin wrote poetry, you know, and Sankara was literally a rock star.

 

[tokala]

You look around you, and see how people behave, and think about how you would behave, in any given situation. In real situations, in imagined ones. No one is denying that you are correct in those assertions. But that is not human nature! Rather, you might say that is not all of human nature. The Marxist position is that human nature is malleable, that morals and motivations, and all the things that influence someone's behavior and thought in society, are created by society itself. You exist in a capitalist society. So does everyone around you.

To his defense, until a few years ago this apparently wasn't realized by most of those oh so professional, quantitative and scientific psychologists, economists and sociologists.
Why? Convenience. The vast majority of their experiments where on undergrad students of their own, western universities.

But already if you delve into the murky depths of western society, i.e. the "common people" some experiments yield markedly different results. Even more so if you are going into non-western societies.

 

[lovett]

Marx did not postulate that humans had endemic natural traits, but rather that man was fully the product of his environment.

...all the things that influence someone's behavior and thought in society, are created by society itself.

Emphases added. These assertions seem to express something of a penchant for universal quantification. It really is a quite remarkable claim that humanity is fully malleable; that we have absolutely no nature but a socially constructed one. It also seems quite unnecessary for the conclusions you want to adumbrate. They are consistent with much weaker assertions about human nature (Rousseauian assertions, for instance).

Is there any reason you make the stronger -as far I know quite unevidenced- claims when the weaker would suffice?

 

[Agent327]

Yeah, this doesn't make much sense.

It might if you read it more slowly (i.e. carefully). It's nowadays rather accepted that both nature and nurture play their part and your example was rather a clear example of that.

Read William Shirer's Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. While Hitler preached populism and socialism, he courted he wealthy ruling class and offered them a strategy for getting Germany out of its depression. Fascism is a tactic of Capitalism.

Shirer is not bad, although I prefer Kershaw's monumental Hitlerbiography for detail. Hitler, by the way, did not preach populism, he employed it in his propaganda, and he was throroughly anti-Socialist (otherwise he would have little appeal for both capitalists and the lower middle class, which was his main support base before seizing power).

Fascism is not "a tactic of capitalism", it has in fact little to do with it.

You do not have to BE from the rulin class to do the work of the ruling class. You are doing it on this post.

Marx and I are not saying capitalism will collapse under it's own weight. Au contraire! That would be undialectic. Rather, by something being "unsustainable" objectively, those subjective to sustaining it work to keep it going. Like you are.

I wasn't discussing Marx, but the theory of dialectic materialism. The point is, this unsustainability is as yet unproven, as I indicated in my previous post.

I object against you lumping me with "the ruling class" on account of my arguments. That is neither here nor there.

Being of a certain age, I should expect that you don't require your ideas to be pre-chewed before you eat them. However, since I am gracious, I will do this for you nonetheless. You look around you, and see how people behave, and think about how you would behave, in any given situation. In real situations, in imagined ones. No one is denying that you are correct in those assertions. But that is not human nature! Rather, you might say that is not all of human nature. The Marxist position is that human nature is malleable, that morals and motivations, and all the things that influence someone's behavior and thought in society, are created by society itself. You exist in a capitalist society. So does everyone around you. So for you to look around you, see people behaving in a certain way, and conclude that this is the only way people can behave, is extremely myopic. Further, it does not begin to disprove the position that different societies mold people differently. Rather, it proves it!

Possibly. But, for one, it has been some time since we have been living in a purely capitalist society. This may have been true at the times Marx was working on his Capital, but, as I mentioned, most modern economies are mixed. (My question as to the How? was in part rhetorical, as I seriously doubt good will be enough to educate people into the Marxist mold, so to speak.)

As malleability goes, there is a limit to people's ability or even willingness to do so.

Most people are often more than the political soundbites attributed to them. Stalin wrote poetry, you know, and Sankara was literally a rock star.

I'm not familiar with Sankara, but if massmurderers write poetry, don't expect me to be impressed (Mao, who was responsible for probably dozens of millions of Chinese deaths, also wrote poetry).

 

[innonimatu]

Emphases added. These assertions seem to express something of a penchant for universal quantification. It really is a quite remarkable claim that humanity is fully malleable; that we have absolutely no nature but a socially constructed one.

The only kind of "human nature" that makes any sense to discuss is the "social nature". There are inescapable facts to being human, limitations or needs if you will: we need to eat a certain amount, we need to breathe, we can walk, we can speak with other humans, we have an urge to reproduce sexually, we die, and so on. So you could say that it is "human nature" to seek food, to stay above water, to move around, to develop languages, to have sex, to dispose of the dead, etc. But what the hell is the point of stating the obvious?

All the claims about "human nature " I see are not about these. They are about the social behaviours. For example, not about the urge to have sex, but about the social regulation of that urge. Not about the need to eat, but about the regulation of what and when to eat. Not about walking versus pretending to be a plant, but about where you can and cannot go. Thus we have religion, we have property rights, we have borders and territories. Of many different kinds, of every conceivable kind. Or de don't have those, which is yet another variation of the theme. Those are the things some people would have pinned as "human nature". And all evidence gathered by history shows that there is no such human nature. That different groups of people can and do come up with different arrangements for all social behaviours.

 

[lovett]

The point of stating the obvious, it seems to me, is so one avoids making absurdly strong claims.

Of course, there are some other statements which we make make about human nature which go beyond the closely biological facts about which you speak. It might be the case, for instance, that human include really does include some measure of self-love, especially a desire for self-preservation. This is what Rousseau thought, and he is certainly the forefather of Marx on this sort of topic. I find it quite plausible; we can adduce other similarly plausible broad ascriptions of human nature. We might think human nature also includes generalized compassion. We might think it includes special care for those nearest to one. These suggestions are more plausible when we consider that facts about human nature don't need to be strict laws; they can be tendencies. They can be tendencies which, for some (perhaps many) not set of social institutions are able to over-rule.

On the other hand, we might think none of these things. But the point is, as far as I can see, none of these facts -if they were facts- would be inconsistent with Marxist thought. None of these suggestions about human nature are incompatible with the feasibility of socialism or communism. The point I am trying to make is that, given this, it seems dialectically foolhardy to commit to the full malleability of human nature.

 

[Mouthwash]

Dear sir or madam, you are wrong. I work with farm workers, I know what they make and how long they live.

The lord hath spoken.

Stuff statistics and evidence.

 

[Old Hippy]

Possibly. But, for one, it has been some time since we have been living in a purely capitalist society. This may have been true at the times Marx was working on his Capital, but, as I mentioned, most modern economies are mixed. (My question as to the How? was in part rhetorical, as I seriously doubt good will be enough to educate people into the Marxist mold, so to speak.)

As malleability goes, there is a limit to people's ability or even willingness to do so.

I too would like to believe this, but I am sure you have seen the blue eyed experiment or the one where they had to stop the prisoner/guard experiment or the one where someone keeps giving electrical shocks to somebody experiment past the point where they would die?

human nature is really far too malleable, so whats so bad about shifting it, nudging it, towards sharing

 

[ReindeerThistle]

It might if you read it more slowly (i.e. carefully). It's nowadays rather accepted that both nature and nurture play their part and your example was rather a clear example of that.

Marxism does not deny nature. Nature and its relationship to humans is at the core: we came out of the seas, down from the trees, etc. We have material needs that do not depend on our upbringing: we need to eat, sleep, have bowel movements. Drop this point. You are not a Marxist, Leninist, etc, yet you have these same needs. Marx's point is that we are both products of our environment, and we have the ability to change it.

Shirer is not bad, although I prefer Kershaw's monumental Hitlerbiography for detail. Hitler, by the way, did not preach populism, he employed it in his propaganda, and he was throroughly anti-Socialist (otherwise he would have little appeal for both capitalists and the lower middle class, which was his main support base before seizing power).

I have not read Kershaw's biography, and I am not arguing the point on Hitler the man, just his system. Shirer was IN Nazi Germany and reporting on the events as they happened. Kershaw was not. Not a criticism, just a fact. Shirer's details of the tactics of Nazi Germany were first-hand, while Kershaw had access to other first hand accounts and perhaps came up with a different view.

Hitler may have been thoroughly "anti-socialist," but are you aware that NAZI is an abbreviation for National Socialist Party? Their rhetoric was socialist, but for Germany.

The result of Hitler's rise was that the German ruling class, who had been making money all along during the depression (and keeping it off shore) and needed a tactic to stave off a socialist revolution, put their money behind Hitler and they did very well for themselves. Hitler courted the junkers, industrialists and bankers by explaining that he would get the country rolling again and they would be the beneficiaries.

Fascism is not "a tactic of capitalism", it has in fact little to do with it.

Au contraire! Fascism, derived from the "fascisti" symbol of old Rome, was, according to Mussolini himself, a tactic to save capitalism -- by joining together the big labor unions, the large corporations and the government under one "corporative state," in opposition to the Socialists and Communists who were vying for power.

Hitler and the Nazis were doing the same tactic in Germany, but in a differnet form: National Socialism.

If you want to know who benefits from Fascism, look at the balance sheets of the companies who supplied the Wehrmacht with their war machinery. Look at the average German wage under Naziism -- Shirer's book has an accounts of all of that, including the "Volkwagen" scheme of working class people owning their cars through payment plans. Those workers never saw those cars and millions of Reichmarks were extracted from the people.

I hold no prejudices. Chiang Kai Shek and Juan Peron were also fascists -- though Peron did not exterminate the communists, socialists and Jews in Argentina, like Chiang did or Hitler.

FYI: The Axis of Germany, Japan and Italy (for starters) was short for "Anti-Comintern Axis." Commintern was the Communist International, headquartered in Moscow, so if you are thinking that Stalin was a fascist, think again.

I wasn't discussing Marx, but the theory of dialectic materialism. The point is, this unsustainability is as yet unproven, as I indicated in my previous post.

You cannot discuss dialectical materialism without Marx. He is the chief theoretician and principle founder of dialectical materialism, which is LEFT Hegelianism. I.e. Hegel formulated dialectics (in the modern classic German sense) and made the ideal the prime concern. Marx made matter the prime concern.

The right Hegelians, e.g. John Roebling (designer of the Brooklyn Bridge who was a favorite student of Hegel) held the ideal as prime. Nazis were in effect right Hegelians, subjectiive idealists as it were.

I object against you lumping me with "the ruling class" on account of my arguments. That is neither here nor there.

No, not lumping you with the ruling class. I said you were doing their work.

If you do not want to understand socialism and communism, you won't, and if it is not in your interest to understand it, you won't. Mostly, if you are not engaged in revolutionary activity, you will never understand it. It is totally intellectual. I have been working with low-income working people for 21 years, organizing to both meet their needs and to empower them to work together to solve their problems and build strong organizations to fight for common solutions to the causes of poverty.

In fact, I work all day surround by people who are not communists, who have a much better understanding and agreement with communism than you have demonstrated in your posts. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy these discourses and I do not want to degrade them by personal attack and I did not mean to attack you personally. We live -- and under socialism we will continue to live -- in a society that tolerates differences of opinion.

I'm not familiar with Sankara, but if massmurderers write poetry, don't expect me to be impressed (Mao, who was responsible for probably dozens of millions of Chinese deaths, also wrote poetry).

I don't know who Sankara is, either, but Mao is a hero to more people than Washington, Lincoln and Jefferson combined. Stalin is too. Stalin's defense of the city of Tsaritsyn (now Volgograd)during the Russian Civil War (1919 to 1921) is legendary. If by mass murder, you mean the 20+ million Soviet citizens the NAZIS killed while invading the Soviet Union, you are truly mistaken. The so-called "purge trials" in the 1930s were witnessed by a prominent American anti-Communist, anti-Stalinist named Joseph Davies, who wrote in Mission to Moscow that these trials were the fairest he had ever seen. Even those found guilty thought they got a fair deal.

If by Mao responsible for dozens of millions of Chinese death you mean the millions the Japanese killed during the occupation, or the millions Chiang Kai Shek killed while trying to exterminate the communists, then you are also mistaken.

The lord hath spoken.

Stuff statistics and evidence.

Pardon me, but what would you like to offer in the way of data? Statistics tell one story, but actual on-the-ground work tells quite another. I have met thousands of farm workers in 21 years, as well as people who do all kinds of work, and I do know what they make and I do know how long they live -- and I have saved lives by just being there, getting them donated medical care, getting them meetings with volunteer attorneys and distributing food and clothing to those who needed it.

I have forsaken personal fortune to better the lives of others, something my grandmother (a life-long Republican Party inner circle member and whose family founded the Republican Party branch in Oklahoma) said I should do, since that seemed to be a famiiy tradition.
So, I am a but of an expert on what kinds of "rewards" are offered in a capitalist system in return to hard work.

 

[ace99]

Peron did not exterminate the communists, socialists and Jews in Argentina

Argentina was a member state of Operation Condor together with Chile which was aimed partly at wiping out communists, socialists and other dissidents of the right-wing military dictatorships. Argentina also fought the Dirty War against the aforementioned and Argentine intelligence worked with the Chileans to engage in disappearances, targeting assassinations, kidnapping, torture etc...

 

[ReindeerThistle]

Argentina was a member state of Operation Condor together with Chile which was aimed partly at wiping out communists, socialists and other dissidents of the right-wing military dictatorships. Argentina also fought the Dirty War against the aforementioned and Argentine intelligence worked with the Chileans to engage in disappearances, targeting assassinations, kidnapping, torture etc...

I stand corrected. However, Peron was still a Fascist.