The most common anti-communist argument I hear from people is
"if everyone is paid the same no matter what this will make them lazy"
What are your rebuttals against claims such as this?
That not everyone will be paid the same (while payment still exists as such), that this is excuse-making such as ruling classes have used since time immemorial (if we don't repress x group of people, they won't do anything worthwhile) to justify their paternal "leadership" of the otherwise-lazy masses, and that history has thoroughly proven this accusation wrong.
Right on all accounts. Nothing to add regarding pathology. As for Wilson, I know and liked that book. Just wish Service had read it too. As for his dislike of Lovecraft, I certainly don't mind. That you can write a history about Marxism does in no way qualify you to say anything meaningful about fiction literature. Obviosly, my own appreciation of Lovecraft has nothing to do with politics.
Certainly not. It was a tongue-in-cheek remark.
Might drop in once in a while though.
I would greatly appreciate that.
I am afraid I don't see much in mr. Chomsky, so since this is a Q and A thread, what makes him important? Also, repeatedly he stated that the United States of America is the best country in the world. My impression is that his perspective here is more that of a liberal than that of a socialist...
Well it's true that he sees libertarian socialism as a natural outgrowth from liberal principles. But like I said, I think he's more useful for his critique of the American Mandarin class (a term he coined, by the way), of which he has produced an extensive and highly insightful repertoire on. I think Chomsky is important for this reason, but also because his anarchist positions are good for "pulling us back left again." Allow me to explain. I think there is a tendency, especially among American socialists, to drift back towards an uber-liberal position, because of our incredibly dichotomous political sphere. So even though I ultimately think Chomsky's reasoning for his anti-authoritarian positions is grounded in incorrect thinking (it may not be entirely his fault that he cannot empathize with Marxism, being an MIT professor for so long, and having come to his political awakening when Spanish anarchism was in vogue), I can't help but agree in some part with many of those conclusions.
So, essentially, the enemy of my enemy is in this case my friend.
As for his comment about America's greatness, I'm not familiar with it so I don't know the context. I can't help but imagine, however, that he meant in a somewhat different aspect than jingoists and nationalists generally do. I've said somewhat similar things about America in the context of it being the most ideal place for socialism to begin.
Indeed, Might I just add that my academic style is rather different than how I appear here, but then I am not usually dealing with the horrid crimes of communism, either....
I think it says a lot that Service speaks in a "serious" treatment of a subject in the same way that we do in pubs and backrooms.
Might I ask which one that is?
The Industrialization of Soviet Russia, Volume 5. The Years of Hunger: Soviet Agriculture 1931-1933 - by R.W. Davies and Stephen G. Wheatcroft. The entire series is fantastic, it starts with the first forced collectivization campaign in 1928 and goes through the end of the Second Five Year Plan in 1937, including one volume dedicated entirely to the nature of, and life on, the Soviet
kolkhoz in 1929.
Ignoring his occasional slide into Cold Warrior nonsense (which, it must be said, is really only found in the passages about the Cultural Revolution and the 'Communists' like Pol Pot), it isn't that bad of a history. Could one do better for a scholarly text? Sure. Is it a good, semi-scholarly overview for an amateur historian? I think it is.
It's not your ideology being caricatured. It's not people of a like mind to you being glibly characterized as buffoons and intellectually vacuous. It is not fitting of a world-reknowned academician like Service to treat a subject in a "serious" book with such disregard.
Sure. An overview of the Welfare State/Social Democracy would be fascinating even if they do digress into some Class Warrior nonsense at the end.
And you wouldn't find the perspective of the author suspect who cannot divorce their disgust with the ideology at hand from their supposed pursuit of the truth? At least communists are honest about the ideological nature of their work, and don't labor under the false pretense of objectivity that supposedly drives Royal Academicians like Service.
I don't remember that part particularly well, but neither do I remember anything particularly odious about it. He criticises Marx for being too idealistic-not a particularly enlightening criticism, but not undefendable- and comments upon the tendency of Communist Movements to be strongest in countries that are not at the level of Capitalism Marx said was necesary for Communism. Again, a perfectly fair criticism and historical tendency. He may twist it a bit at the end by saying something along the lines of Communism Movents (in areas that have had a strong Communist Movement) feed off popular discontent, but that is far from being an indefensible position.
Again, I don't remember much specifics about this area. Service bashes the foreign visitors who viewed Stalin as some sort of Communist Jesus but he handled Stalin's purges and failed agricultural policies remarkably well. I will take some bashing of idealists for a balenced overview of the agricultural policies toward the kulaks and the purges any day of the week.
If my memory serves, the only time he explicity connects communism to bacillus is when he is talking about the nutters like Pol Pot or the Mexican 'communists' who have gone from defending the poor to engaging in drug running. Hardly groups communists would want to associate with given their sordid activities and not actualy being communist!
I try not to search out bad books and until recently have been limited by the selection at my local library. But honestly, given the numerous misconceptions about the USSR and communism as practiced in the world, this book at absolute worse replaces them with misconceptions closer to the truth.
He also draws a line between Marx, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao, suggesting that the first leads to the last naturally and inevitably. That's a pretty glaringly stupid statement, to say nothing of its ignorance. In addition, his characterization of communists is as ideological morons and obsessives, and of communist movements as being orchestrated by the skilled demagoguery of these naturally murderous madmen, and not as a massive social response to the horrid conditions created by capitalism the world over, and problems which capitalism either created or failed to solve. For such an overview of an ideological movement to ignore something such as this is to beg the question: what was the point at all? The only answers I can come up with are libel or irresponsibility, both of which invalidate the opinion of the person in question. There is no excuse for it.
