As Americans Turn Left, Remember Socialism Killed 36 Million Chinese
By: HRaleighspeaks (The Federalist)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
After I finished reading Yang Jisheng’s book, Tombstone: The Great Chinese Famine 1958-1962 , an extensive analysis on the worst man-made calamity in human history, I couldn’t help but wonder: If Yang’s book were required reading for American college students, would so many young people embrace socialism so enthusiastically?
Yang opens the book with his father’s death in 1959. It was April, and Yang was a high school student. Since his school was far from the village where his father lived, Yang rarely saw his father during the school year. One day, a villager brought Yang the dreadful message—his father was dying of starvation. Yang rushed home. He found utter destitution.
At the little hut his father lived in, Yang saw his father’s “eyes sunken and lifeless, his face gaunt, the skin creased and flaccid,” which reminded Yang of the human skeleton he saw in an anatomy class. Yang suddenly realized that “the term skin and bones referred to something so horrible and cruel.” Yang tried to feed his father some peanut sprouts—the only thing he could find—but his father was too weak to even swallow. He died three days later.
Despite losing his father to starvation, Yang “felt no suspicion and completely accepted what had been instilled in me by the Communist Party and the Communist Youth League.” Since the founding of Communist China in 1949, the CCP had sealed China off from the outside world. The government had a domestic monopoly on information and facts.
“From nursery school to university, the chief mission was to inculcate a Communist worldview in the minds of all students. The social science research institutes, cultural groups, news organs, and schools all became tools for the party’s monopoly on thought, spirit, and opinion, and were continuously engaged in molding China’s youth.” Furthermore, “all views diverging from those of the party were nipped in the bud.”
How to Kill 36 Million People
Growing up in this environment, young Chinese developed a fervent belief in Communist ideals and intolerance for dissenting voices. “Any words or deeds that diverged from these ideas would be met with a concerted attack.” Like many brainwashed young people, Yang believed that Chinese people’s suffering was the result of China being bullied by Western imperialism for nearly 100 years.
But under Mao’s leadership, China went on to implement the highest ideal of mankind: Communism, where everyone was supposed to have equal access to food, shelter, health care, and so much more. Yang was taught that such greater good was worthy of every bit of personal sacrifice. Yang was ready and willing to give his own life for the Communist ideal. Therefore, he regarded his father’s death and his own village’s misery as an isolated incident and minor setback for China’s march to paradise.
Only years later, when Yang became a journalist at Xinhua News (China’s state-run news agency), did Yang begin to have doubts. His beliefs were shook after he gained access to provincial population data from 1958 to 1962. These data are still highly guarded state secrets to this day, but Yang’s position gave him the cover and protection he needed to carry out his discovery of the truth. After extensive research, Yang was horrified to realize that what had happened to his father and his village was repeated throughout China during those years.
Yang estimates that at least 36 million Chinese people perished during the Great Chinese Famine between 1958 and 1962 (some scholars estimate the death toll could be as high as 45 million). Many were starved to death like his father, but others died as a result of the CCP’s brutal “anti-hoarding” campaign, which used violence to “extort every last kernel of grain or seed from peasants.”
Apart from the standard abuse of beating, there were other forms of torture, including “dousing the head with cold water, tearing out hair, cutting off ears, driving bamboo strips into the palm…and being buried alive.” When adults were tortured to death, the young children they left behind usually died of starvation soon after. Cannibalism was widespread too. No words are adequate enough to describe the magnitude of the horror and agony.
However, to date, the CCP not only denies that such mass starvation and suffering has ever taken place, but also insists that any life lost during this period was caused by natural disasters such as droughts. Yang’s book presents indisputable evidence to support his conclusion that the Great Chinese Famine was instead a man-made disaster.
The Famine took place during the height of Mao’s Great Leap Forward, which aimed to transform China from a backward agricultural society into a communist industrial powerhouse within a decade. Mao and his radical comrades believed that as long as they had the willpower and an abundant supply of cheap labor, they could ignore the laws of nature and economics.
The CCP launched a number of campaigns to achieve the lofty goals Mao set. A mass steel campaign was one of them. Everywhere in China, people built small backyard furnaces, attempting to produce steel.
Every village had a quota to meet. Everyone from eight-year-old kids to 80-year-old seniors pitched in on around-the-clock shifts by the backyard furnaces. Anything that contained metal, including farming tools and cooking pots, was smashed and fed into the furnaces. However, none of these efforts increased steel production, and all of it only yielded useless output.
The most consequential campaign was agricultural collectivization, through which the government became the sole owner of all private and public land via coercive confiscation. Farmers were forced to surrender everything they had, including food, farming tools, and livestock, to the people’s communes.
Bureaucrats who had no farming experience dictated to farmers what and how to plant. Farmers had to show up and leave the field every day at the same time in teams. All produce had to be sold to the government at fixed prices, as private transactions were strictly prohibited. Farmers weren’t even allowed to cook at their own homes — everyone had to eat together at communal kitchens.
The CCP also treated farmers as a reservoir of cheap labor. Millions of men who were at the peak of their productivity were drafted by their local governments to work on various irrigation or industrial projects.
These policies had multiple disastrous effects. First, the collectives eroded people’s incentives. No one wanted to work hard because regardless of individual effort, everyone had equal access to the same amount of food — when there was still food available.
Second, by demanding farmers to attend backyard furnaces around the clock and drafting productive farmers to work on various government projects, fewer farmers were left behind to plant and take care of crops. So crops were left rotten in the fields.
Third, many of the government’s construction projects yielded no tangible benefits but ended up destroying the environment and upsetting the fragile ecosystem, which caused natural disasters to take place not only more frequently, but also with worse impact.
Finally, since meals at communal kitchens were free of charge, food waste was prevalent. Initially, “commune members gorged themselves” believing “the government would come up with more food when current supplies were exhausted.” But the government aid never came.
Making matters even worse, CCP leaders insisted communes must produce more grain for cities in China and for other communist countries. Local leaders were either pressured into falsely reporting or willingly exaggerating ever-higher grain production figures to their political superiors.
Yang wrote that everyone is a liar within a socialist regime, and these lies have consequences. The state forced villages to collect more grain than they could spare, based on these false production numbers. So even the seeds for the upcoming year were used to meet the government’s procurement. Therefore, very little grain was left in villages.
Without grain, communal kitchens tried to feed hungry farmers with food substitutes, such as rice straw, corn stalks, and cotton batting. In January 1959, the village communal kitchens had run out of food substitutes and had to close their doors for good.
Calamity, Darkness, and Evil
Yang concludes that because the state had monopolized “all production and life-sustaining resources,” the ordinary people had no means of saving themselves when calamities occurred. By handing over everything they had to the state, people also handed over control over their very survival.
The famine peaked in 1959 but continued until 1962 due to the CCP’s refusal to admit its wrongdoings. The CCP believed that such admission of mistakes would invite questions about the party’s ability to govern. Additionally, there was no free press to report the truth and no elections to hold those in charge accountable for their policies. Therefore, those murderous policies continued, and the death tolls multiplied.
Yang took tremendous personal risks to write this book, and it is still banned in Communist China. Yang originally wanted to title his well-researched book “The Road to Paradise,” but he changed the title to “Tombstone” for three reasons: He wanted to erect a tombstone for his father, for the 36 million Chinese people who perished in the famine, and he wished to bury socialism, the ideology that has inflicted so much suffering on Chinese people.
Unfortunately, socialism is getting a second chance in western democracies. One important step we need to take to combat socialism is to pass on the truth to the next generation, including reading and sharing books such as “Tombstone.” Yang writes that he wrote this book so “people will remember and henceforth renounce man-made calamity, darkness, and evil.” More calamities are sure to unfold if we do not heed his warnings.
Helen Raleigh, CFA, is an American entrepreneur, writer, and speaker.
She's a senior contributor at The Federalist. Her writings appear in other national media, including The Wall Street Journal and Fox News. Helen is the author of several books, including " Confucius Never Said " and “ Backlash: How Communist China's Aggression Has Backfired ."
Tags
Who is online
44 visitors
Required reading ?
Only if the other 999 books spouting the same are required reading.
More Joe McCarthy "red scare" type nonsense. America is in ZERO danger of becoming a communist country, and yet there are people who , seriously, make this (the fear) the focal point of their political point of view
John Birch Society - Wikipedia
________________________________________________________________________
Are there any Birchers on Newstalkers ?
Do not confuse socialism with totalitarianism...
You can't have socialism without totalitarianism.
I guess you never heard of Norway or Sweden...
Those countries aren't socialist.
What bucket did you drip out of? Conservatives have been calling Norway and Sweden socialist for decades and those dunces on the left know full well that those geniuses on the right know all the facts ... especially those not worth knowing.
And we can have totalitarianism with or without Socialism.
That's not a rebuttal. Maybe you should try a meme next time.
do re "meme" fa sol la ti dodo
That is how many people define socialism. To them socialism = single-party, command economy, authoritarian rule by a brutal, murderous regime. Then whenever they see socialism referenced by any other usage (e.g. socialism (incorrectly) defined as statism or socialism (incorrectly) defined as social democracy or socialism (incorrectly) defined as extreme liberalism or ...) they substitute that meaning with their single stubborn definition.
And, interestingly, they reject any notions of socialism as defined by Marx. They take all the authoritarian states who hid behind the label of 'socialism' for marketing purposes and use them to redefine socialism per Marx. Stubborn ignorance.
So, in your mind, Norway and Sweden are socialist states?
No. They are social democracies; they have capitalist economies. They are —by definition— not socialism per Marx.
Funny how you understand that social democracy is not socialism but absolutely, stubbornly insist that socialism = authoritarian state yet authoritarian state rule is the polar opposite of what Marx described. Social democracy resulted from an attempt to slowly evolve to socialism. While still capitalism, it does have some of the elements of Marxist socialism (less economic control by a tiny minority). Authoritarian states, in contrast, are the epitome of absolute control by a tiny minority. As far away from the concepts of Marx as one can get.
I agree with you. Yet, as the responses to this seed convincingly demonstrate, many persist in stubbornly clinging to the ignorant belief that Sweden and Norway are socialist countries
As I explained, although technically not socialism, social democracies at least have some philosophical overlap with Marxist socialism.
Authoritarian states, however, are the polar opposite of socialism. A nation whose state holds central economic control is the polar opposite of a nation wherein economic control is distributed and controlled by the people themselves.
Do you understand that?
Do you understand that?
Do you?
Imagine claiming that authoritarian states run by dedicated socialists are the polar opposite of socialism. UP is down. Capitalists are socialists and actual socialists are the opposite of socialists. It simply bizarre to see the levels you will go to claim dedicated socialist's are't real socialists. It's the no true Scotsman fallacy taken to it's extremity. It probably should just be renamed the no true socialist fallacy for how often socialists use it.
I get your spiel. It's no different than the storefront preacher with 20 followers who declares only his followers who think exactly like him are "real Christians" and the millions of others who call themselves "Christians" are heretics and fake Christians. Every splinter group considers themselves the only true believers. You and your sect are the true keepers and interpreters of the Lord Jesus Marx's testament, and all those who inspired by Marx and tried a different path to achieve his communist nirvana have no right to the name socialist, right? That's what it boils down to at the end.
Anyone who claims that an authoritarian state = socialism does not understand that socialism per Marx is the polar opposite of authoritarian rule.
Demonstrably you do not. Instead you stubbornly stick with a slogan level understanding of 'socialism'. You simple take the word of tyrants like Stalin and Mao Zedong that what they implemented was 'socialism' and ignore the volumes of work produced by Marx (and those who consistently followed his principles) which describes the exact opposite of what Stalin, Zedong, etc. produced and labeled 'socialism'.
Do you ever feel like you're just repeating yourself over and over, but nothing you say sinks in?
All the time. What is worse though, Gordy, is that the response is always equivalent to nuh 'uh.
Anyone who seriously studies Marx does not come away with a concept of 'authoritarian state rule'. The 'authoritarian state rule' comes from those who blindly adopt a slogan level depiction of 'socialism' and refuse to do serious research on the subject.
Good thing I didn't!
Instead you stubbornly stick with a slogan level understanding of 'socialism'.
No, I'm just not a zealot who thinks only those who follow a narrow definition of socialism are "real socialists". Likewise, I believe Methodists, Presbyterians and Baptists can all call themselves Christians, even though they have different doctrinal interpretations on how best to follow Christ. The no true socialist you argument you constantly resort to is absurd.
ou simple take the word of tyrants like Stalin and Mao Zedong that what they implemented was 'socialism' and ignore the volumes of work produced by Marx (and those who consistently followed his principles) which describes the exact opposite of what Stalin, Zedong, etc. produced and labeled 'socialism'
Honestly, I think you are completely unfamiliar with Stalin and Mao etc.... The idea that they were pretend socialists is gaslighting of the highest order. Either you've been gaslight yourself, or have no problem gaslighting the ignorant people on this board. It's preposterous that anyone familiar with either of them would try and denounce them as not "real socialists".
Just so we are clear, you are denying that the leaders of the Russian and Chinese revolution were influenced by Marx, correct?
It is not my definition of socialism. It is from Marx. You stubbornly insist that socialism is defined as per the tyrants. You ignore the collected works of Marx and simply adopt the propaganda of Stalin, Zedong, etc. You ignore the intellectual foundation and instead simply adopt simplistic slogans.
They claimed they were implementing Marx; they used the concepts of 'socialism' and 'communism' per Marx to rally support. The people of course were responsive to having democratic control over their economies. Clearly the people would not be in favor of brutal authoritarian rule. Surely you comprehend that.
Now, where do you see any evidence that these tyrants created a society where the workers controlled the economy? Where do you see evidence that even tried to do so? Where do you find democratic, decentralized control of the economy in these authoritarian states? Where do you see the workers controlling the economy?
To simply declare, as you do, that the former USSR and Red China were implementing Marx is to be blind and deaf to what Marx wrote.
No. I don't. I said they are socialists. They are not "pure" either. Much like any other religion, socialists are schismatic and constantly claiming whoever doesn't completely agree with them isn't a "real" socialist.
You ignore the intellectual foundation and instead simply adopt simplistic slogans.
Don't project. I've actually done the work on the "tyrants." You are repeating the silly propaganda that's arisen the last few decades that they weren't real "socialist's" after the failure and terrors of their revolutions became manifest. Stalin was as devoted a socialist as any other Marx's followers.
hey claimed they were implementing Marx;
Were the revolutionaries trying to implement Marx or not? It's a simple question.
I noticed that too.
Or refuse to learn.
This is not a no true Scotsman issue. Show me where these tyrants created what Marx defined — an democratically controlled economy where the people are in control. All you can show is the opposite — an authoritarian state wherein a minority (state officials) controlled the economy.
See Sean this is the fundamental point. You clearly cannot show the socialism in the former USSR or Red China because it flat out never existed. The people were controlled and abused and the exact opposite of democratic control over the economy.
You phrase this as if I had avoided the question.
Lenin and Trotsky were arguably trying to implement what they believed was a variant of Marxism. Stalin and Zedong never even tried. Lenin did establish soviet councils and probably did intend for them to have democratic control. But he quickly abandoned that idea (and thus any semblance of Marxism) and went directly to authoritarian control. Later (two years before his death) Lenin realized that he would need to build the industrial foundation of Russia with capitalism before he could even begin to think of socialism. At that moment, he started to return to thinking as per Marx because Marx' principles are based upon established industrial economies. That is, Marx defined socialism as a transition stage after established capitalism within a nation had failed (under its own weight ... per Marx).
So, to be clear, Lenin had Marxist intent but he ignored the fundamentals of Marx and tried to turn pre-industrial Russia into socialism. Right off the bat he was not implementing socialism but rather Leninism. And even then, he immediately abandoned his lofty goals of democratic workers in control and went to authoritarian rule. The only Marxist socialism ever implemented in Russia was essentially vocabulary. The labels stuck but the actions (and the results) had nothing to do with the labels.
Just arguing. They just insist that a slogan-level understanding of the subject matter is correct.
You clearly cannot show the socialism in the former USSR or Red China because it flat out never existed.
The Marxist end state never existed. "Socialism" is the means to try and achieve it, which any honest person admits was the goal in both Russia and China. You keep conflating the means employed to achieve the communist end state (of which there are many) with the actual achievement of the communist end state itself. As if their failure to achieve the Marxist nirvana somehow wipes out their motivation.
Your claim that the weren't trying to achieve communism is ahistorical revisionism of the most despicable kind, because it isn't even a pretense at the truth, just propaganda.
Stalin and Zedong never even tr
That's crap. The idea that Stalin and Mao and their followers weren't actual socialists is just dishonest. Imagine all those people who suffered exile, torture and were killed in the name of socialism being told they weren't real socialists because Mao failed to dot he impossible immediately achieve communism.
To deny that the Chinese revolutions was primarily influenced by Marx is just gaslighting of the highest order. There's no other word for it. An honest socialist would argue that the dubious methods used by socialists like the Chinese and Russian revolutionaries demonstrates those particular methods don't work while others might, not the nonsensical claim that those revolutionaries influenced primarily by Marx weren't socialists.
When you have to resort to claiming that Chinese Communists and Russian like Stalin weren't influenced by Marx, you've lost all credibility.
Yes, that too.
As I stated, it was defined as a transition from a mature, capitalist economy.
That is not what I claimed. You should read what I write. I know inventing what I write makes things easier for you but it is intellectually dishonest. Now, read carefully what I actually wrote:
I stated that they arguably had a Marxist ideal (they were Marxists after all). I also stated that they veered from Marxism at the inception (Russia was pre-industrial) and then quickly completely abandoned what Marx had described and went to authoritarian rule.
You see where I wrote that, right?
If Stalin and Mao, et. al. were socialists then why did they violate Marx and pursue authoritarian rule? Why is it that their people were not provided with economic democracy and instead murdered, brutalized and worked to death? How do you conceive that authoritarian rule is NOT the polar opposite of democratic control over the economy by the people?
I notice that you continue to ignore the above questions.
Where do I state that they were not influenced by Marx? I stated that Lenin and Trotsky arguably attempted to implement the ideals of Marx. I also stated the Stalin and Zedong did not even try (regardless of prior influence). So show me where Stalin or Zedong even tried to give their people democratic control over the economy.
You cannot. Right? So where do you get the idea that Stalin and Zedong even tried to implement Marxism? Based on their use of labels? Forget about what they said and focus on what they actually did. You might learn something.
In short:
Show me where Stalin or Zedong even tried to give their people democratic control over the economy.
Yes, and the revolutionaries were trying to speed up the process. What defines a socialist is a belief in achieving the Marxist end state.
n and Mao, et. al. were socialists then why did they violate Marx and pursue authoritarian rule?
What commandment did Marx lay down about using authoritarian rule as a method to achieve socialism? As anyone familiar with the history of the revolutions' will tell you, they did it because they felt circumstances on the ground demanded it to protect the socialist state. Neither revolution occurred in a bubble, you realize? You seem to have this very simplistic belief that the revolutionaries had freedom of action to do whatever they want and didn't have to deal with real world constraints.
Why is it that their people were not provided with economic democracy and instead murdered, brutalized and worked to death?
Because they believed there actions were required to preserve the revolutions, defend against the capitalist powers and create the quickest path to the socialist end state. Why would you think that's a hard question to answer?
How do you conceive that authoritarian rule is NOT the polar opposite of democratic control over the economy by the people?
How do you not conceive that the revolutionaries knew from Marx that the end state wouldn't magically spring into existence when they seized power? The point of the revolution was to move the societies to a place where the end state was possible, and if you read your Marx, you'd know that largely agrarian, almost feudal societies aren't ready for the communist end state. This is basic stuff.
Lenin and Trotsky were arguably trying to implement what they believed was a variant of Marxism. Stalin and Zedong never even tri
First, Lenin and Trotsky were not in lockstep at all about what a socialist Russia would look like. Moreover, of course they all thought they were implementing Marxism. The issue, of course, was the means to get there. Since Marx is pretty silent on about how the end state will arise, it leave a lot of room for interpretation.
. You really are ignorant about the goals of Mao and Stalin though. I recommend reading Stephen Kotkin's thorough biography of Stalin for a basic understanding of Stalin's motivation's and thought process. He was obsessed with Marx and his some of his most heinous crimes like the purges were designed to put Marx's "new man", reared on socialist doctrine and untainted by exposure to tsarism and the west into positions of power. If you familiarize yourself with Stalin's beliefs and motivations and still don't think he was a Marxist, there's not much that can be done for you.
Where do I state that they were not influenced by Marx?
I guess I was giving you credit for making a coherent argument. IF you claimed, falsely, that the Russian and Chinese revolutionaries weren't primarily motivated by Marx, your argument would at least make internal sense, even if its ahistorical nonsense. But to admit that the revolutionaries were primarily influenced by Marx and then claim they aren't socialists renders your argument nonsensical.
how me where Stalin or Zedong even tried to give their people democratic control over the economy.
. Again, you keep mistaking the means employed for the end goal. The whole justification for the revolutions and the all brutalities and savagery that followed was to create an environment where the Marxist utopia could happen where such a thing was possible. Until, as Marx admitted, human nature itself changes, this is impossible. It's the whole problem with Marxism in a nutshell, it's premised on the essentially religious belief that human nature can be changed so any socialist in power is justified in not turning over the economy to the "people" until that miraculous changes occurs.
You can deservedly piss on the communists abhorrent means all you want, that doesn't change the fact that their end goal was a socialist one. It's belief in the Marxist nirvana that makes one a socialist. .
So show me where Stalin and Zedong sought to achieve the Marxist end state. Or even the Marxist view of socialism where the workers (the people) have democratic control over the economy.
I asked about Stalin and Zedong and you provide an answer that works for Lenin and Trotsky (and I have already stated earlier that Lenin and Trotsky arguably wanted to implement Marxist socialism).
Now, on my actual question, Stalin took control well after the revolution. Where do you see him ever attempt to provide democratic control over the economy to the people? Where do you see him making any attempt at the Marxist end state?
So now you repeat what I have already told you and pretend that you are informing me? What do you think I was talking about when I talked about the pre-industrial Russia and Lenin's realization that he needed to establish a capitalist economy first?
True, but I have not claimed they were and this point is a diversion from the debate.
Does not matter what they thought, it matters what they actually did. Hitler probably thought he was building a utopic, ideal world. Does not matter what one thinks, it only matters what they actually do.
Show me where Stalin and Mao sought to give their people democratic control over the economy. Until you do that, you have no foundation to suggest me ignorant.
One can claim Stalin was obsessed with Marxism but without supporting facts the claim is bullshit. Nowhere does Marx call for mass murder as some form of genetic cleansing. You are arguing that achieving any idealized goal or, in this case, prediction of Marx is ipso facto implementing Marxism. Using Marx' hypothesis that a mature communist state would evolve a 'New Man' to deem the mass murders of Stalin as 'Marxism' is a pathetic leap.
Further, this is a diversion. We are talking about the economic system known as socialism and you have still failed to show where Stalin or Zedong attempted to provide democratic control by the people over the economy.
You do not understand how a person could be influenced by someone in their life but then pursue a path that is in direct opposition to what the influence describes? It is obvious that Stalin and Zedong were influenced by Marx; they adopted his labels, the promised his idealized goals. As I have stated from the start, they used Marx for propaganda while implementing the polar opposite of what he described. They implemented brutal authoritarian regimes when Marx would have had them implement a democratic system where the workers controlled the economy.
You fail to recognize propaganda. Even decades later and with the facts of the regimes laid bare, which really is pathetic. I have asked you to show me where Stalin or Zedong even tried to give their people democratic control over the economy. Instead you claim that all of their brutal actions were just an alternative way to make the Marxist utopia possible.
Well these two men spent their entire lives building empires for themselves. During their lives they simply increased their own control over the people of their nations. Yet you claim that really, in their hearts, they were doing this for their people. They were killing their people, starving them to death, working them to death, etc. because in the end they would achieve a utopia.
That is one hell of a bullshit story Sean.
Instead of your fiction that brutal, murderous dictators really were good men trying to build a dream for their people,
show me where Stalin and Zedong acted to provide their people with democratic control over the economy.
Focus on what people actually do, not what they claim to be doing.
Look at their lives. They spent their entire lives working to achieve socialism.
d I have already stated earlier that Lenin and Trotsky arguably wanted to implement Marxist socialism
And you used as an example of the NEP, which Lenin reluctantly agreed to under pressure from the farmers to stave off starvation and that Trotsky opposed. That's socialism in a nutshell. Everyone has their own opinion on what true socialism dictates. It's what makes this so comical. You are acting true to type by denying all other socialists the title of socialists who applied means that you consider heretical to achieve their goal. Ask 100 socialists, and they'll tell you the other 99 aren't "true" socialists like they are.
Now, on my actual question, Stalin took control well after the revolution.
And he was a socialist revolutionary for decades before hand. Or was he faking being a socialist then, too?
Where do you see him making any attempt at the Marxist end state?
He would claim his entire career was dedicated to that purpose, particularly the insane amount of time he spent going over the minutiae of socialist doctrine so that the next generation of socialists would be properly educated in socialism. He probably spent more time editing socialist school books to ensure the proper socialist message was passed on to the next generation than the actual minister of education.
So now you repeat what I have already told you and pretend that you are informing me?
I'm showing you how silly your argument is by pointing out that your own statements undercut your own argument. You can't make a coherent claim that socialist revolutionaries inspired by Marx aren't socialists, so you instead even more bizarrely claim they aren't socialists because they couldn't succeed at doing what Marx himself said was impossible. You know Marx himself said those semi feudal countries wouldn't be ready for end state socialism, and then you turn around and attack them for not implementing end state socialism. Do you pay attention to what you are arguing?
Does not matter what they thought, it matters what they actually did.
Intent matters because it explains why they did what they did. If you paid attention to the debates among the socialist leaders of Russia through the Stalin years, they were constantly disagreeing on what Marxist doctrine demanded. Which intuitively makes sense because they were trying to translate general theory into real world situations that bore no relation to the theory. The world is a lot messier than Marx's simplistic pronouncements make it seem, which is why pretty much every socialist advocates a different method of achieving socialism. Only the most narrow minded and zealous are unable to credit that their co-religionists who also believe in Marx's end state are Marxists because they disagree over methods that Marx largely ignores.
s I have stated from the start, they used Marx for propaganda while implementing the polar opposite of what he described.
The point is not's just the two of them. Every Russian and Chinese communist revolutionary was a socialist. To pretend that Stalin, for instance, was a fake socialist but Trotsky and Lenin weren't is just silly. Sure would have been news to Lenin. All of the leaders of the Russian revolutionary generation were socialists. All Stalin did was keep the state moving in the same direction started by Lenin and Trotsky, twisting and turning as circumstances dictated.
Marx would have had them implement a democratic system where the workers controlled the economy.
You keep claiming that yet fail to offer any proof of this, or any other claim. Where specifically did Marx claim that relative to a neo-feudal economy that was only beginning to industrialize. I mean, if you are going to accuse someone of heresy, have the proof.
You fail to recognize propaganda
No, I follow the historical record. I have no dog in this fight. You've fallen for the half-assed rationalizations and other logical fallacies offered by weak minded socialists who either out of cowardice or dishonesty refuse to recognize that socialists are capable of the worst crimes against humanity the world has ever seen. The reality of Russia, China, Cambodia, can't be faced up to, so fake narratives and silly diversions about "real socialists" are created to avoid facing up to what your fellow socialists have done in the name of Marx.
nstead you claim that all of their brutal actions were just an alternative way to make the Marxist utopia possible.
well, duh. That's what the historical record tells us they were doing. Marx himself endorsed revolutionary terror as the means to shorten the transition between to late stage capitalism and final state socialism. Since state murder is endorsed specifically by Marx, it's disingenuous to claim Stalin's terrorism isn't compatible with socialism.
Again, if you wanted to be honest, you could attack them for using failed means that have now been proven not to work, but to read them out of the socialist movement altogether is dishonesty worthy of Stalin.
f your fiction that brutal, murderous dictators really were good men trying to build a dream for their people
Now you are talking crazy. They were monsters and to claim I've characterized them as "good men" is simply dishonest and should be beneath you. Hitler thought he was helping humanity too. Doesn't make him a "good man" Utopians are often the biggest monsters.
The Guardian's reviewer of Stalin's essential bio sums him up succinctly and correctly:
"The standard story says the grain procurements crisis of 1927 made it necessary for the Bolsheviks to take radical action. But this argument has always had the weakness of not explaining why collectivisation was the radical action necessary, and Kotkin will have none of it. On the contrary, he says, collectivisation was a wild gamble – a move arising out of Stalin’s conviction that Russia could not achieve socialism without doing away with small-scale peasant farming. Nor was there anything necessary about sticking to all-out collectivisation through thick and thin. That happened because “right through mass rebellion, mass starvation, cannibalism, the destruction of the country’s livestock, and unprecedented political destabilisation, Stalin did not flinch. Feints in the form of tactical retreats notwithstanding, he would keep going even when told to his face by officials in the inner regime that a catastrophe was unfolding – full speed ahead to socialism.”
Now finally we see the crux of Kotkin’s interpretation: Stalin was a man acting out of deeply held ideological convictions whose actions are only understandable in these terms, not in terms of maximisation of personal power. "
His monstrousness is central to his socialism. It's a feature, not a bug.
Look at their lives is exactly what I have been asking you to do. But instead of looking at what they actually did, you would rather focus on the labels they used and the empty promises they made.
First of all, I am not a socialist. Imagine talking about something without actually advocating it. That is what I am doing. As for socialism having multiple definitions, that is clearly correct. That is why I focus on the root ... socialism per Marx. Not even variants / interpretations of same, but what the man actually wrote.
Yes he was. But that was not the point. You claimed that the 'socialists' of the former USSR took control [Sean @4.2.18]: "Because they believed there actions were required to preserve the revolutions, defend against the capitalist powers and create the quickest path to the socialist end state." I told you that Stalin took control well after the revolution so your point is moot. Stalin was focused on the quickest path to his objective. His primary objective was to build an industrialized nation that could produce a war machine to ensure he remained in power. And his actions correlate superbly with what I just wrote.
Stop going by what people claim and focus on what they actually do. Yes, Sean, I have been quite clear to note that Stalin was big on making claims. And you continue by labeling everything he worked on as ipso facto 'socialism'. Soviet rules (part of Stalinism) you label 'socialism' ... anything Stalin touched was ipso facto socialism. That is your fundamental problem. You take Stalin as the authoritative definer of 'socialism' rather than go to the source (Marx). Stalin directly contradicts Marxism yet you deem Stalinism to be 'true socialism'. It is bizarre.
Stalin was a mass murderer who exploited his people to grow an industrial base and war machine for his own purposes. He created his own doctrines for his own purposes. Your argument suggests that Stalin was carrying out Marxism. If so, that means he was educating the people so that they would eventually achieve class consciousness and would begin working towards the dictatorship of the proletariat (where the workers are in control). Do you really think Stalin would be working against his own objectives?
Your argument denies what Stalin actually did and pretends that under the covers he really truly was trying to achieve the Marxist utopia. Forget about facts, forget about what we have observed, just go by what Stalin claimed. Good grief.
Look for evidence that the former USSR ever tried to evolve to a nation where the people held democratic control over the economy. Until you do, you are weaving fiction.
You are simply redefining socialism to 'whatever the former USSR was'. And 'socialists' to whoever supported or emulated the former USSR. I object to that nonsense and point you to the foundation of Marx. If someone violates the fundamental tenets of Marxist socialism they cannot accurately label their actions as 'socialism'. That is simply propaganda ... as I have noted.
You have argued that merely claiming 'socialism' means that you are actually implementing 'socialism'. It does not matter what actions one takes, even actions that are in direct opposition to your claims. No, you do not care about what these men actually did. You only care about what they claimed.
Socialism defined as 'the system of the USSR'. The former USSR was focused on finding the best way to evolve their system. The fact that they labeled it socialism does not make it so. Again, if the system is not providing democratic economic control by the people then calling it socialism is a misnomer. It makes the word 'socialism' have no meaning. Let me illustrate:
You cannot reconcile these two. They are polar opposites. This is not a case of the former USSR creating a variant of Marxism, this has no resemblance to what Marx defined. The only thing in common are the labels.
There is no need to pretend. Look at what Stalin did. I have asked you to show me where he provided democratic economic control by the people. You cannot do so because what Stalin did was the exact opposite of that. Lenin and Trotsky (more so with Trotsky) did take actions that at least partially correlated with Marx. Stalin took actions that were in direct opposition. You deem Stalin a socialist only because he said so and you ignore what he actually did.
Well you first have to ask for it. Also note that you refuse to show where Stalin provided economic democracy so asking me for proof is unjustified.
Anyway this is funny (to me) because it shows that you have no idea what Marx wrote. Socialism to Marx was defined as what would happen when capitalism failed. Socialism is by definition post-capitalism. It is the transition from a failed capitalist economy to what Marx labeled as communism (his utopia). Everything Marx wrote regarding socialism was done under the assumption that capitalism was the dominant economic system and that it was collapsing under its own weight.
Apparently you did not know that. Lenin certainly would have known. But, as I noted, he ignored that and tried to skip the capitalism step (which, you should know, is how a nation creates an industrial base capable of sustaining society). This was fundamental to Marx. Lenin ignored the very definition of the word 'socialism' yet used that label anyway.
Marx did not speak of a transition from feudal systems. He focused his entire life on the study of capitalism. Most of his work is the critique of capitalism. His concept of socialism is the interim stage which starts when his criticisms of capitalism come true (in his mind). Socialism is, by definition, that which occurs when capitalism has matured and has produced an industrial base and has run its course (per Marx that is).
Now if you still think you need to get this directly from Marx, I suggest you start reading Das Kapital.
Your argument is that they really were trying to build a utopia for their people and that they used brutal authoritarian acts to accomplish same. That is an 'ends justifies the means' argument where you have claimed that they really were looking for the greater good in spite of their actions.
Now if you wish to claim that they were not really trying to achieve a Marxist utopia (which means the people are living in a stateless society with plenty of food, housing, clothing, etc. and where no minority force is controlling the majority and the people are free to pursue their ambitions and passions) and that their actions are just what the seem: the actions of an authoritarian regime the sought power at the expense of its people then you would be seeing part of the point I have been making.
So which is it. Were Stalin and Zedong really trying for a utopic endgame where the people have the economic power (and dictators are obsolete) as you have argued, or were they in fact monsters (as you have accurately noted) who used labels and empty promises as propaganda?
Were Stalin and Zedong really trying for a utopic endgame where the people have the economic power (and dictators are obsolete) as you have argued, or were they in fact monsters
Both, which anyone with familiar with Marx and their records understands. That's what makes this argument so silly. In order to propagate your neo socialist propaganda that Russian and Chinese communists weren't real "socialists" you not only ignore the historical record, you disingenuously corrupt Marx's writings to fit your agenda.
That Stalin and Mao believed themselves socialists is beyond dispute. That they spent their lives trying to interpret real world evens within the framework of socialist theory is beyond dispute. But because they interpreted Marx's vague outline of how to achieve end state socialism differently than you who has set himself up as the Pope of socialism, you excommunicate them as socialists. But what's really sad is how you resort to mangling Marx to justify your attempt to rewrite the historical record.
Marx proposed a number of stages along the way to "Communism" or the socialist end state. You, disingenuously , ignore everything Marx wrote about those early transitory stages and claim they weren't "real socialists" because they didn't immediately implement end state communism, which Marx himself knew was impossible. There is more to Marx than the endgame he imagined. Yet you only reference the last stage and ignore everything else he wrote about how a truly socialist state would come about. Marx and the socialist revolutionaries realized it would be a long struggle to overthrow not only the capitalist regimes protect and against counter revolution , but to completely smash the existing capitalist society.
The dictatorship of the proletariat had to entirely destroy capitalist society to make socialism possible. Everyone, except for you apparently, recognizes Russia and China were still in the Marx's stage where end stage socialislm was impossible. Following Marxist text, the socialist revolutionaries viewed their role within the socialist framework as smashing the capitalist state and reorganizing society through eliminating private ownership of the means of production and then, through central planning, create the type of abundance for the people that would allow the state to pass to higher forms of socialism. Granted, in reality, we know it's impossible to change human nature, but believers in Marx believe it can be done and that's the task they set for themselves. They were the Marx certified destroyers of capitalist society and bourgeoisie norms. When you understand the role Stalin and Mao were playing within Marxist theory, it simply defies rational argument to claim they weren't actual socialists.
Anyone who cares about this should open an actual book on the Soviet and Russian revolutions. I've provided one leading analysis. The dispute among scholars is not whether Mao, Lenin, Stalin etc. were socialists, but what kind of socialists they were. To claim they weren't socialists at all is simply beyond the pale.
Yet again you make shit up.
I have never argued that to be socialism a system must immediately implement end state communism. I have argued, repeatedly, that the actions of Stalin (and Zedong) were the exact opposite of building a nation wherein the people (the workers) had democratic control over the economy.
Having repeated this several times there is no way you could have possibly missed that. You cannot address it so you make shit up.
And your strawman continues. Show me what Stalin and Zedong did to raise class consciousness. Show me where they started growing democracy within their nations. Show me where the people started gaining control over their economic lives. You have two of the world's worst dictators who grew their empires on the blood of their people and simply increased their control over the masses yet you claim without a shred of evidence that these men were really trying to give economic freedom to the people.
Quite a load of bullshit.
This is near incoherent. The dictatorship of the proletariat refers to the workers being in control over the economy. It is fundamental to socialism being in effect. It is the political dimension of active socialism (per Marx). Next you speak of Russia (former USSR) and China (Red China) still in the "Marx's stage". The "Marx's stage"?? Hard to imagine what this made up phrase is supposed to mean. But you seem to think that it is some stage of immature socialism and thus the completion of socialism was impossible. If you actually knew what you were talking about I suspect you would state something like these nations were far from achieving Marx's end stage which he called communism because the people were incapable of managing their societies in a classless, cooperative, stateless manner.
Trouble is, as I have noted, even if you had written something coherent like I offered, you would be wrong. Marx defined socialism as the transition between established capitalism and communism. If a nation does not have an established (mature) capitalist economy and thus lacks the industrial base that socialism requires as a foundation, then that nation by definition cannot be in the socialist state (socialism, per Marx, is not in effect). This is fundamental and you continue to ignore this fact.
Your argument remains to be that the former USSR was a socialist nation because Stalin said so. When challenged to show what Stalin actually did to help his people assume democratic economic control you have deflected and engaged in the typical dishonest tactics of a lost debate. Thus, I repeat:
Show me what Stalin did to enable the people of the former USSR to take democratic control over their economy. That is to say, show me where Stalin actually tried to implement socialism per Marx.
You repeatedly ignore this. ⇡ Yet this is the critical point. It does not matter what a person claims; what matters is what they actually do.
If you did not put words in my mouth, you would have nothing to argue. The word 'socialism' has taken on many meanings. As I have stated, Stalin and Zedong called themselves socialists and thus they caused a new usage of the term. People eventually labeled them socialists because they added what they were doing to the jumbled mess of definitions called 'socialism'. These were added to other usages such as 'social democracy', 'statism', 'redistribution of wealth', etc. The word 'socialism' is so overloaded with definitions that it, by itself, is meaningless.
And that is why I have focused this entire thread on socialism per Marx (not just 'socialism'). That is a grounding element with a much clearer meaning. And that meaning states that socialism is the result of a mature capitalist society with an established industrial base that has failed under its own weight. The failure (per Marx) is a result of the class system that would evolve due to the disparity of ownership of productive resources. The fundamental class differences are the bourgeoisie which own and control the property of the industrial society (means of production and distribution) and the proletariat who own only their own labor. Per Marx, the bourgeoisie continues to leverage their property making them increasingly more wealthy while the proletariats must secure jobs with the bourgeoisie (since in an industrial society the self-sufficient households are few). This class disparity will, per Marx, eventually cause the capitalist system to break and the proletariat will take control over the industrial base. (Again, this is simply Marx, and he clearly has been wrong on this.) At this point in time, per Marx, the nation is transitioning from capitalism to communism. This interim stage where the workers restart the economy and political system is called socialism by Marx. In socialism, the workers (the proletariat) are in control. They are not being starved, murdered, etc. by a dictator who controls every aspect of their lives. There is no dictator. They are the 'dictators'.
Marx had no stated time frame for the transition from capitalism to communism called socialism. But it starts when the proletariat assumes control over the bourgeoisie and ends when the final remaining structure of the old system ... the state ... no longer serves a function since the people are self-managing in some utopic cooperative society.
You inexplicably seem to see this concept of socialism in the former USSR. You claim that Stalin really was leading the proletariat and that even though his actions are in direct opposition to giving his people control, you claim that he was actually doing so but in his own way.
As George Carlin would say, now that is a bullshit story.
Show me what Stalin actually did to enable his people to assume democratic economic control; don't tell me what he said or what others claim he 'thought'. Actions are what matter, and Stalin's actions were those of a brutal, murderous authoritarian dictator who continued to exploit his people in an ever-increasing stranglehold on their freedom. For you to even suggest that this is in some way preparing them to take democratic control is absurd.
And despite the last 100 plus years of collectivist governments murdering hundreds of million of it's citizens, you will still find people tell you it's okay to sacrifice individual rights to benefit the "community." This is the result of collectivism. An elite organizes society in the way that is beneficial to them and is more than happy to sacrifice the lives of the less powerful in the name of the "community." The leaders of collectivist countries are always more than willing to murder others in the name of making the community stronger. .
Amazingly, those who champion sacrificing individuals and their rights on behalf of the collective never seem to find their own lives need sacrificing for the community.
What's that nonsense that you're ranting on about Sean?
Why should Americans care? Not that we don't, that 'socialism' allegedly killed 36 million Chinese?
Tell us what socialism is Vic and Sean.
We shouldn't! We're not a socialist country.
This article is dumber than normal.
That is clear as this Federalist contributor just makes a bullshit assumption right from the start when she says:
"If Yang’s book were required reading for American college students, would so many young people embrace socialism so enthusiastically?"
Where are these "so many young" socialists? Seems to me every young person I encounter is a capitalist who favors a few social programs for the poor but they, unlike the conservatives who often shake and wail in fear of supposed "socialism" taking over America, likely know what actual socialism is. To most conservatives here it seems the term "socialism" is interchangeable with communism and even fascism which are completely different animals, but you'd never know that listening to the conservative know nothings shaking in their boots about the scary socialists they irrationally fear are under their beds and in their closets.
It's pretty much standard fare for idiots that read this shit. They don't stop for 2 seconds and ponder the fact that the country can no more turn socialist under Democrats than it can turn fascist under Trumpian Populism.
Conservative Republicans cry and whine about supposed leftist socialism taking over but defend and deflect from an actual insurrection led by fascist Trump supporters attempting to overturn an election and install their own dictator. We saw thousands of Trump supporters attack our nation and attack democracy so there is a far greater threat from the right attempting to turn us fascist under Trump populism than there has ever been of any leftists turning us socialist.
Those dangerous dumbasses were convinced the LEOs and military were on their side and would rise up to help them. They were very, very wrong. To go the whole way one way or the other requires a huge effort to change our system of government AND then enforce it. The insurrectionist were no more likely to turn our country into whatever Q fever dream they all had than those in the "Seattle Free Zone" over the summer were.
And that's saying a lot.
If all they have are boogiemen this is going to be a long 8 years.
Funny, I thought the attempted rebuttal were dumber than normal.
Memes and basically saying "nun-unh" is as about as low as you can go.
There wasn't anything in the seed to actually demonstrate how America or any supposed "leftists" are anything like the communists behind the Chinese famine of nearly 70 years ago. Why should there be any defense other than a resounding "No."?
Nothing described in the book resembles anything Democrats or supposed "leftists" are suggesting for America so it is a moot point. It is just another "boy who cried socialism" example and leaves conservatives and those on the right making such claims just looking stupid.
Yawn. Take away the Social Security, Medicare then turn the roads/bridges into private for profit toll roads, privatize the Military, Police, Fire Departments and this list could go on adnauseam----but overnight the large girthed red hat throngs would------------------: Finally understand they'd been duped?
Besides, the greatest evil of 'so called socialism' is the matter of the taxes being used to better benefit the taxpayers at the expense of those who are not necessarily in the position to require extra benefit.
In all nations that currently use quasi-socialism in their governance, such as Sweden, Denmark, Norway and others, be rest assured those nations have their fair share of Very Wealthy and a solid, secure many faceted Middle Class.
The American right wing whines only to protect the corpulent American wealthy, especially those who use their wealth not for public good, but instead to purchase the larger share of governance such as senators, congress people, judges and legislation.
You should probably understand what socialism is, first.
It's very depressing that in the 21 century people think the military is an example of socialism.
Here's a hint. All government action is not "socialism."
Don't get them started. That's going to be a five paragraph explanation with the usual caveat that real Socialism has never been tried. You know the Socialism they love, but won't admit to.
Amazing how that works. All the people who devoted their lives to socialism, considered themselves socialists and in some cases died for it, weren't "real socialists"
Sort of like how Obama can declare who is, and isn't a "real" Muslim.
It truly is amazing!
The big giveaway is that they can spend all day explaining what Socialism is, yet proclaiming that they're just explaining it to you.
On you. Tell us.
Are you advocating for Socialism?
Do you define socialism as authoritarian rule? If it is more than that, then what (in your mind) are the defining characteristics of socialism?
Are you advocating for autocracy?
I'm so sick of this alleged socialism allegedly killing so many - it's more like republicanism or so called conservatism
(deleted)
You're free to leave and go to a different site or platform then! No one is forcing you to engage or read comments.
That about sums it up. We're seeing that at play right now.
More pictures? Wow!
There's a picture of the guy who tweeted it, the rest is pure fact. Perhaps you'd like to refute those facts with anything close to a rational comment, but then again I am likely asking for too much.
Refute slogans? How about you prove them.
Fail to understand how you can ask such a question about slogans and proving them.
Especially when you've bought into the brand of MAGA, Stop The Steal, the "I'm like a really smart guy," and so on, so forth and every other golden toilet the Mar-a-Lago man complains on.