Ask a Red III

[Mouthwash]

The difference between experience and statistics in my case is this: how many workers' lives were saved with statistics? If your goal is to make a difference, then all the charts and graphs in the world will not put a dollar in any poor person's pocket. It will not get them to the doctor, it will not convince them, either, that capitalism is doing them any good.

Are you saying that my experiences are worthless compared to worthless pieces of paper. Are you saying what I do with my own two hands is not "fact."

You have proven my point -- there are no rewards for hard work under capitalism. No good deed goes unpunished.

Stay in your ivory tower with your "statistics and facts." They serve those who promulgate them. I, on the other hqnd, am proving the superiority of socialism where it counts -- with the people.

I can't even fathom a response to this.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

I can't even fathom a response to this.

Thought not. If you saw my other posts, you saw that I said that I use statistics, but as others pointed out, you offered none in return. Of course statistics are just numbers. My point is that in answering Amadeus' question about rewards for hard work under "communism," I included a challenge: what are the rewards for hard work under capitalism? Farm workers work very hard. Someone has to do it. But they get very low wages.

 

[Mouthwash]

Thought not. If you saw my other posts, you saw that I said that I use statistics, but as others pointed out, you offered none in return. Of course statistics are just numbers. My point is that in answering Amadeus' question about rewards for hard work under "communism," I included a challenge: what are the rewards for hard work under capitalism? Farm workers work very hard. Someone has to do it. But they get very low wages.

You didn't back them up. You made bare assertions.

You don't have even rudimentary understanding of how markets work. If something is necessary, the value and therefore the price increases. This means bigger returns for the farmers. Nobody is forcing them to be farmers. But if the price is low because of the sheer abundance of food, then some farmers will be forced out of the business, creating a reduction in supply and forcing the price back up.

Not implying that markets are perfect by any means. But this is the basic overview.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

You didn't back them up. You made bare assertions.

You don't have even rudimentary understanding of how markets work. If something is necessary, the value and therefore the price increases. This means bigger returns for the farmers. Nobody is forcing them to be farmers. But if the price is low because of the sheer abundance of food, then some farmers will be forced out of the business, creating a reduction in supply and forcing the price back up.

Not implying that markets are perfect by any means. But this is the basic overview.

Farm workers average less than 10,000 USD per year, and have a life expectancy of 49. My statistics are based on institutional history of dealing with over 13,000 farm workers in the Central Valley, CA, USA; over 10,000 in the Sacramento Valley, CA; 10,000 in Oregon and some 30,000 in NY state. Thankfully, my stats are not available on line, as we choose not to use the internet to organize and after a week on this thread, I can see why.

There are, according to the US dept of labor, 13 million farm workers in the US.

The government subsidizes certain ag products and large ag producers, like ADM and Monsanto. Also, since farming is a land-based economy, it's not so easy for mult-generational farmers to just give up farming. To be forced out of business when there are hungry people in the world is be the rule of capitalism, and it ain't right. You can't just throw away tree crops, for instance. If a farmer can't sell them, they rot. What do you do with 2000 acres of orange trees? Who will buy them?

As for the rest of the world, according the Vandana Shiva, an Indian activist, 250,000 farmers in India committed suicide because they could not compete locally with subsidized crops coming in from America.

I ask you, who, then will grow and pick the food that people do buy? Should they not be compensated ? Farm worker unions are not given the same dubious protections in the US as other workers, and clearly the deck is stacked in favor of a few large, powerful agricultural conglomerates.

Incidentally, as a communist, I do not have any problems with markets, but in the US, the large business buyer of labor has goverment on their side, while the seller of labor generally does not. Take out the government from the market and how easy do you think t would be to demand a living wage? Well, not easy, but at least a fair fight.

Anyway, keep posting questions. Even those with baiting questions are bringing up some evocative points. Sorry 'bout the ivory tower jibe, it's the Jayhawker blood in me coming too close to the skin.

This was all to answer a question from Amadeus, and if he's out there, I hope I have answered this, that the incentive for hard work under socialism would be guaranteed survival -- like the US guaranteed the survival of the banks, a sociakist government would guarantee the survival of workers, too. But the harder you worked, the better you'd do.

 

[Mouthwash]

Actually, I said that farm workers averages less than 10,000 USD per year, and have a life expectancy of 49. I did not say farmers. How many farmers or farm workers do you know? My statistics are based on institutional history of dealing with over 13,000 farm workers in the Central Valley, CA, USA; over 10,000 in the Sacramento Valley, CA; 10,000 in Oregon and some 30,000 in NY state. Thankfully, my stats are not available on line, as we choose not to use the internet to organize and after a week on this thread, I can see why.

Yeah, so? If people don't like working as farm hands (because it's hard or whatnot) they drift off into other jobs, and the wages rise because of the scarcity.

YOU, on the other hand, are talking theory. You are ignoring that the government subsidizes certain ag products and large ag producers, like ADM and Monsanto.

I am not. I never claimed that America has a pure market economy.

Also, since farming is a land-based economy, it's not so easy to just give up farming.

They can sell the land.

To be forced out of business when there are hungry people in the world may be the rule of capitalism, but it ain't right. You can't just throw away tree crops, for instance. If a farmer can't sell them, they rot. What do you do with 2000 acres of orange trees?

If the people that are close enough to the farm to be shipped to them at a cost that allows the farmer to profit want that type of food, the demand for it rises. Of course the demand of people halfway around the world doesn't factor into this. While it is true that they should be fed, that's a psychological problem (that is, our inability to empathize with or understand societies not within our own Monkeyspheres), not something inherent to markets. We're a localized society and we'll always be that way as long as we're humn. If surplus food rots, that means that the demand isn't there for them. Farmers don't let food rot that they can sell, even if they have to sell it for less because the people who want it are poor.

The people in the world that are starving aren't doing so because they can't grow enough food. They're doing so because their societies invest their capital in weapons and ammunition rather than food. Third-world countries receive more than enough cash to feed their populations.

As for the rest of the world, according the Vandana Shiva, an Indian activist, 250,000 farmers in India committed suicide because they could not compete locally with subsidized crops coming in from America.

Waaaaaaaaaahh! Your appeal to emotion has destroyed any counterargument I could possibly make! Things are looking good for the people that BUY the crops, though, especially given that they are far more numerous than the people that grow those particular crops. Also, 250,000? I don't think India even has that many farmers.

I ask you, who, then will grow and pick the food that people do buy? Should they not be compensated ? Farm worker unions are not given the same dubious protections in the US as other workers.

They are compensated. No one is being forced to do so.

 

[Masada]

You don't have even rudimentary understanding of how markets work.

Where's your economics degree from?

Isn't it obvious? You suggested the one force was stronger than the other. While I suggest that that is debatable, it certainly confirms both.

I suggested it, the example did no such thing.

 

[ace99]

Also, 250,000? I don't think India even has that many farmers.

......just to clarify this you think that a country of 1.2 billion doesn't even have 250,000 farmer.....

 

[Tahuti]

Where's your economics degree from?

That's irrelevant. There are enough with an economics degree from the best universities who don't know bull about economics, and those that do who don't have such degree. Those with mathematics degrees tend to know more about basic economics than trained economists, who in turn know more than historians without any economics training...

 

[ReindeerThistle]

Augusta State University. I'll answer Reindeer tomorrow; I don't feel obligated to educate every hippie that comes my way.

Don't bother, not here.

This is starting to sound like the Monty Python argument sketch.

If you want to engage in healthy polemic with me over what is and isn't relevant social change, economic conditions and the future of humanity, join my social group "CIV for a Livable world."

I am not a hippy. I am a 100% red-blooded Repubican American with roots in the South and the North. My forebears fought in every war from 1775 to 1991. My parents and grandparents were landowners, andnmy family helped found the Republican Party and worked in the abolition movement.

Hey, if Communism can rehabilitate Emperor Pu-Yi of China, why don't you believe it can recruit a Red State Republican?

If you want to debate my position on Stalin, meet me at:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=12277035#post12277035

Mouthwash, it's been fun, but this is not the thread for our little joust.

 

[Mouthwash]

Where's your economics degree from?

Augusta State University. I'll answer Reindeer tomorrow; I don't feel obligated to educate every hippie that comes my way.

 

[Praise_Satan]

Stalin... *puke*

"Controversial figure" Yah, right. He was a murderous tyrant. The cultural oppressor and ethnic cleanser of the masses.

Destroy the minorities, destroy their culture and language and ethnically cleanse them from their homelands... I guess that's one way to reach socialist "equality" and make use of the malleability of the human nature.

Reaching the new communist man by oppression, murder and massive lying. The state leading with some real good example of the new communist man's morals.

A person committing a massive amount of crimes against humanity should not be a controversial figure. He should labelled a disgusting piece of human garbage universally.

 

[Agent327]

Not confusing at then at all. Nazism was fascism. Where's the argument here?

Nazism does not equal fascism, as I concisely tried to explain - obviously in vain. I suggest reading a book on fascism; the term has been misused plenty of times:

Good point, but fascists (Pilsudski was a fascist) in Poland were persecuting Jews before the Nazis came, Hungarians after they left.

Pilsudksi was also not a fascist. You really should read a book on the subject some time...

Ex-Communist is the #1 occupation in the United States' Left, where are you from? Which Communist Party and how long have you been, or were a member. If you quit, why.

I think you are (just slightly) overexaggerating the support Communism has - or rather had - in the US. I'm not sure if I quit first but the party disbanded itself; I'm Dutch by law.

I only know by what they DO for proletarian class struggle. I would like to know your organizing history. Not to debate, but to know whence your arguments come.

My organizing history? I have had a philosophy class, so I prefer logic in arguments.

Well, that being the case, I made my point. If you are a communist, a member of the communist party, you submit to the rules, discipline and structure of the party. If you violate those knowingly, you submit to the procedures for prosecution. I am only stating what I know and read.

I would advise you to read something more than party literature. It might improve argumentation. (I'm being serious.)

Not debating the statistics, but the perspective. I am not glorifying Stalin, just pointing out the circumstances of the "purges." Lenin admonished Parties to purge themsleves of the reformist elements that invariably attach themselves to the party,
though he did not say execute them. Those accused during th epurge trials had adequate preparations for their defense, and the ability to appeal, and many did not take this route. They were politicians, and the end of a politician's POLITICAL life means the end of their life, so they accepted the verdicts. Killing is terrible. I do not advocate killing as a solution to problems. I advocate inner party struggle.

Since sources on the 1930s purges are public for the most part now, I can only suggest that googling might provide some reliable sources, if you are interested. What you are currently claiming on these trials does not move beyond Stalinist propaganda; they weren't named 'show trials' without reason. But to point out some inner lack of logic in these trials: if all the accused were guilty, why were they (partially) pardoned later? You also seem to focus on 'politicians', but the Communist party members were only targeted last; if WW II hadn't intervened, Stalin would have 'uncovered' a Jewish doctor plot. Stalin's paranoia may have been the prime mover behind all these trials, which seemed primarily designed to remove potential (or merely imagined) threats to his position. But there's plenty of literature on the subject, if you are interested.

As for the post-war persecution, I do not know. Tell me where I can find the data, I'd be happy to look it up.

You can find a summary introduction (and plenty of sources) here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge

Fair enough. I will not debate this -- however, Dr. Joshua Horn's Away with All Pests documents these mistakes and the medical breakthroughs that resulted from dealing with the many industrial problems and accidents. There are are no finished communists, no finished communist parties. Compare that to the millions who also died needlessly in India, at the hands of British rule and in the years after, and there is no comparison.[/QUOTE]

I'm not following. Are you suggesting that some implementation of British rule in India resulted in millions of deaths?

You and I are not faced with the US army on our terrain, agitiating for war in China, just after we defeated the KMT and the Chiang Kai Shek. I am just not in a position to JUDGE -- just point out the facts. MORE people died at the hands of the Japanese and during Japanese occupation than because of the Chinese government.

Additionally, the Chines post-revolutionary government was not Mao and Mao alone, he invited members of the KMT revolutionary committee and the China Democratic League, as well as many other non-communists to join the government. [/QUOTE]

I'm sorry, that is arguably not true. Deaths resulting from Japanese occupation in China in all likelihood don't exceed 1 million. The 'Great Leap Forward' (1958 to 1961) was organized well after Communists controlled mainland China and, in short, resulted in utter chaos. Local Communist leaders had to report to Beijing that peasants were dying en masse of starvation before it was realized how catastrophic the whole campaign was. By then an estimated 18-40 million Chinese had died - in just three years. (The total figure may even exceed 40 million considerably, according to the latest demographic study on the subject. Some introductory literature can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward)

It is also of note that the year that the USSR "split up" and Yeltsin took power, was the first year the USSR did not have a five-year plan.

Well, by that time it was pretty clear even to the Russian leadership that 5 year plans were resulting in a drop in production (production rates had been growing less since the 60s) and because of their rigidity had become completely counterproductive. (By the way, when Jeltsin became president, the USSR as such no longer existed. It was under Gorbachov that there was no longer a 5 year plan in operation.)

I agree, but no one provided alternative stats, and I do use statistics, but they are no substitute for DOING something about the problems you see. That was my point. What do you DO with the info. Stats can serve those who use them, but the person in front of you facing a heat shut-off in the middle of winter is not deniable.

Obviously. My point is merely that there are certain numbers facing such problems. To obtain an overview of a problem numbers are unfortunately indispensible. (In the case of the Stalin purges it is not a matter of providing alternate stats, but rather of trying to find reasonable reliable source data.)

Reliance on labour movements does not make one NOT a fascist. Hitler brought in and subjugated the trade unions in Germany, ditto for Italy. When you unite the lements most hostile to the working class and the organized elements working class is in rout, you have fascism. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck it's a duck. This was not to loosely categorize, just define the criteria for "fascism."

You are missing the point, I'm afraid: Peron specifically relied on labour movement as they were his prime support base. That is a defining difference with both fascism and Nazism, who shared a 'corporatist' approach to labour issues. (Peron may, misguidedly, have had personal admiration for Hitler - not uncommon in prewar years even in countries such as Britain -, he was certainly not trying to emulate Nazism. In essence, Peron was a populist.

If one simply starts calling all extreme right movements 'fascist' that name looses all meaning. (The pre-war German KPD had the nasty habit of referring to the Social-Democrats as "Social-Fascists".)

I would rather suggest that the compliance of most test subjects in Milgram experiment type situations is a consequence of the way a "civilized" society works, not of "human nature".
We are conditioned to delegate power and responsibility to various forms of "authoritiy", and that conditioning can be exploited.

I think that conclusion is too far-reaching. The test subjects were basically nothing else than that the one group were the 'guards', while the other group were the 'prisoners'. Now, taking into consideration that this was basically a 'game' setting (with no specified rules), I think any conclusion beyond what human nature dictates in such a situation might become farfetched rather soon. (Remember, the 'guards' weren't supposed to be 'bad' guards, but just guards. They chose to be 'bad' guards.)

I suggested it, the example did no such thing.

I think we can agree then that examples do not suggest, people do.

 

[W|M]

Augusta State University. I'll answer Reindeer tomorrow; I don't feel obligated to educate every hippie that comes my way.

What's wrong with the belief systems of hippies?

Stalin... *puke*

"Controversial figure" Yah, right. He was a murderous tyrant. The cultural oppressor and ethnic cleanser of the masses.

Destroy the minorities, destroy their culture and language and ethnically cleanse them from their homelands... I guess that's one way to reach socialist "equality" and make use of the malleability of the human nature.

Reaching the new communist man by oppression, murder and massive lying. The state leading with some real good example of the new communist man's morals.

A person committing a massive amount of crimes against humanity should not be a controversial figure. He should labelled a disgusting piece of human garbage universally.

How dare you spout such evil fascist propaganda! Stalin was the greatest leader to have ever lived, you evil traitor!

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I will not so politely remind everyone that this is not a discussion thread, nor is it a general comment thread, it is a question and answer thread. If you want to discuss or comment on any of these issues, then form separate threads about them. This is not the place for that sort of posting.

Thank you for your cooperation. I would hate to have to get moderators involved.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

I want those who have been asking to be clear on a few things:

When I speak of fascism, I speak as a tactic of capitalism. That is a Communist position. The 1935 Comintern "Popular Front Against Fascism and War" started by Bulgarian Communist Georgi Dimitroff was the Communist reponse to the "Anti-Comintern Axis" of Germany. Italy and, later, Japan. see Gruber Soviet Russia Masters the Comintern as well as Shirer's Rise and Fall of the Third Reich

Fascism is: a condition in a nation where the forces most hostile to the working class are IN POWER and the organized sector of the working class has been routed. This assumes that there has been a contest, between "fascist" forces and the organized sector of the working class. In Italy, it was when the fascisti combatimenti either attacked or simply sat out the labor unions on strike and established fascist party hegemony in Italy. See Gruber's International Communism in the Era of Lenin In Germany, it was when the Nazis were granted the executive powers under Hitler, etc.

Read the book on the subject of fascism and its criteria, Friendly Fascism by Bertram Gross. Fascism took different forms in different countries.

Many countries had fascist movements and "Fifth Columns," as well -- Roger Mosley and the Silver shirts in England come to mind, the Franco 5th column in Madrid, the Croix de Feu in France. US participation in the liberation of Europe was to a large extent delayed via pressure from the likes of Charles Lindbergh and the "America First" Committee (Lindbergh loved Hitler) and by the likes of IBM and Ford, who made money selling punch card systems and trucks, respectively, to Nazi Germany. (c.f. Labor's Untold Story )

I am not calling all extreme right movements "fascist." The Tea Party Movement is NOT "fascist," they are not "fascists." Glen Beck is not a "fascist," nor is Rush Limbaugh -- wait, maybe he is.

Not all fascist movements came from the right, in fact, most came from the left (Franco in Spain, was definitively NOT from the left). Mussolini, don't forget, was once a member of the Italian Socialist Party, a student of Angelica Balabanoff (one-time Lenin secretary) and was editor of its organ Avanit. Many left-wing socialists in Germany joined with Hitler in the Reichstag, and many in the SA were "socialist" -- that is, until the night of the long knives.

I am fairly specific about who I refered to as "Fascist." I included Chiang in China, and I can include Batista in Cuba. Interestingly enough, The German Communist Party adhered to at least one of the 21 Conditions for Admission to Comintern in that they recognized the German "Social Democrats" as "Social Fascists." (c.f. Griber International Communism in the Era of Lenin

I have learned this through 21 years of revolutionary practice and study. I have read everything from Fisher and Gehlen to Shirer on Nazi Germany, and I have read everything from Joseph Davies to Adam Ulam on Soviet Russia, and I have read more non-Communist biographies of Stalin, Lenin and Mao than I care to mention. I have read Jomo Kenyatta, Fidel, Che, Debray, Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Lui Shao-chi, Amilcar Cabral, Ho Chi Minh, Vo Nguyen Giap -- I could go on.

I work 12 - 14 hours a day, and I read about 10 - 14 books a year, so I have a few things to say if those interested want to learn more. I am currently reading Open Veins of Latin America by Eduardo Galleano. I have also read Men and Politics by Louis Fischer this year, and he was in Europe during the rise of fascism in Germany, Italy and Spain -- oh, yeah, and Vichy France.

As far as the communist movement in this country goes, there is still a CPUSA. John L. Lewis of the CIO in the US in the 1930s said that about 1/3 of his top labor organizers were members of CPUSA. (c.f Labor's Untod Story, UE Publication). He said "If management employs them, can labor do less?"

CPUSA's NYC cell met every Saturday night in the 1930s IN MADISON SQUARE GARDEN!!! FDR hired communists in his adminstration.

Since I have now become the lighting rod of the CFC anti-Stalin brigade, forced by my own big mouth to defend a (as in one of many) communist position to non-communists on the legacy of Stalin, I suggest you debate me over at this forum:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=12277035#post12277035

I am interested in what you would have to say, just not here.

Please feel free to ask any questions.

 

[Mouthwash]

What do you think of the kibbutz?

 

[sophie]

The difference between experience and statistics in my case is this: how many workers' lives were saved with statistics?

A lot, actually.

 

[aelf]

Knowledge can be obtained without empirical methods, eg, pure mathematics (though probably without empirical observation even pure mathematics would be impossible), which is on the rationalist camp.

But in the natural sciences, and biology is one of them, knowledge can only be obtained through scientific, empirical methods. The alternative is charlatanism.

Um, since when is this purely a question of biology?

It seems that you're trying to frame the issue at your convenience in order to make your arguments work.

 

[tokala]

I think that conclusion is too far-reaching. The test subjects were basically nothing else than that the one group were the 'guards', while the other group were the 'prisoners'. Now, taking into consideration that this was basically a 'game' setting (with no specified rules), I think any conclusion beyond what human nature dictates in such a situation might become farfetched rather soon. (Remember, the 'guards' weren't supposed to be 'bad' guards, but just guards. They chose to be 'bad' guards.)

I was referring to the Milgram experiment (faked electrical shocks, increasing up to a lethal voltage applied under the supervision/guidance/pressure of a "scientist").
The "Stanford prison experiment" situation might indeed be better suited to reveal "human nature" as opposed to cultural conditioning.

 

[Masada]

Question time!

(1) Inno, if we assume that markets are efficient doesn't that also mean that the wages being paid in the marketplace are also the efficient ones?

(2) A related question to (1), isn't it the case that for a market to be efficient, individuals (in aggregate) have to be rational actors?

(3) If (1) and (2) are true doesn't this mean that people are on average in the 'right' (profit maximizing) job for them?

(4) If (3) is correct, what might this tell us about people who have awful back-breaking jobs and low incomes?

(5) Inno, when did I become a hippy?

(6) Finally, Inno, how the hell is this considered to be left-wing thinking when it naturally follows from neo-classical economics?

Am awaiting an intelligent response,

Masada, neo-classical economist, and recovering libertarian.

That's irrelevant. There are enough with an economics degree from the best universities who don't know bull about economics, and those that do who don't have such degree. Those with mathematics degrees tend to know more about basic economics than trained economists, who in turn know more than historians without any economics training...

You read that Taleb book, I'm guessing? Cool. He's a black swan himself since mathematicians seldom have any exposure to economics; economist seldom have exposure to history; historians seldom have exposure to advanced maths and so on. It's also interesting to note that Taleb talks approvingly about Austrian economics and hyperbole aside I, as an economist, mostly agree with him and ask my students to have a look at his works.