Re: The Underclass in Capitalist Russia
DarkMatter
Somalia had no central functioning government following the United
Somali Congress (USC) ouster of Major General Mohamed Siad Barre on
January 27, 1991. The political situation of the Somali Civil War has
been marked by chaos, interclan fighting, random banditry, internecine
warfare between proto-governments and resistance to the state.
DarkMatter
things they need. It is very exploitative. There are many jobs where
people work hard but are paid too little to be able to buy the things
they need in life.
Communism also had its flaws. Communism failed to reward those who
worked harder or contributed more to society. For example if doctors
are paid the same as bussboys this is not just. A doctor should be
paid more than a bussboy because he invested much more effort and his
work is much more difficult. Communists tried to enforce equality but
it's impossible to enforce equality because then you are no longer
equal.
Ördög
> Capitalism lets people simply die if they don't have money to buy the
> things they need. It is very exploitative. There are many jobs where
> people work hard but are paid too little to be able to buy the things
> they need in life.
Capitalism is the rule of the few over the many. This has always been
so and always will be.
In a planet where resources (and wealth) is finite relying on
perpetual economic growth is physically impossible. This explains why
regular periodic economic collapses overseen by the plutocracy have to
happen. Moreover capitalism, specially the form we observe today is
very entropic. This means that our so called democratic governments
have lost control over the economy a long time ago. Corruption (in the
form of manipulating elected bodies, and the electorate itself) is
rampant.
When things get too chaotic for comfort for even the most hardened
plutocrats rightwing fascism is the only way out. We have seen that in
the 1930s and at the present we are not too far off from that
situation yet again.
In each and every turn of the political cycles the losers are the
little people, those who are actually doing the hard work.
> Communism also had its flaws.
Correct.
Its underlying philosophy, although it is superior to the capitalism,
is becoming increasingly dated in view of the technological/scientific
advances of the past several decades and the emerging economical and
demographical problems we all have to face in a quite serious manner.
Marx knew nothing of "global warming" or "peak oil".
The biggest flaw of communism to date is that it has never been fully
implemented anywhere on this planet.
What we have seen so far were insufficient, feeble and often thwarted
or perverted attempts to implement it. The actual outcomes were
disasters on a grand scale: personal cult, state capitalism, loss of
personal freedoms and personal initiative and in many instances deep
poverty.
That is what has happened in the old "Communist Block".
> Communism failed to reward those who
> worked harder or contributed more to society.
Not quite so. There are more ways to motivate people than juts the
prospect of monetary gain.
What true is though that in a "dictatorship" there is precious little
that could motivate people apart from the prospect of freedom.
And this fact alone has enabled the capitalist West to undermine and
destroy the the "Communist Block".
> For example if doctors
> are paid the same as bussboys this is not just. A doctor should be
> paid more than a bussboy because he invested much more effort and his
> work is much more difficult.
Hmmm. Actually not. Being a bus driver makes you responsible for the
safety of a huge number of passengers over the years of a working
life. It is also a hard and to be honest a very boring and not very
challenging existence. Yet someone has to do it.
A doctor can have his/her rewards at an intellectual level by
restoring peoples' health and saving their lives using the tools of
the modern medical science.
Your provided analogy fails in the capitalist system too:
A small business owner who has never spent time on studying anything
in particular or let's say a plummer can earn up to a multitude of the
wage of an average medical scientist. Yet a scientist has to go
through many years of study and a long period of training before
becoming employable at all. On top of that, scientists usually do not
have secure jobs, work extremely long hours and are employed on short
term contracts only. They have to obtain their rewards during their
working lives in other ways than just the monetary gain or leave their
profession for good (as many actually do).
> Communists tried to enforce equality but
> it's impossible to enforce equality because then you are no longer
> equal.
I am not quite sure what are you getting at here.
The facts is that we are all equal except for those biological
differences which can be explained by the genetic diversity among the
individuals of our species.
Equality should not need to be enforced, yet due to the socially
aggressive dominant behavior of some individuals indeed it has to be.
We live in such a complex social environment on this planet that the
excessive asocial behavior of a few at the cost of the rest of the
society must be curbed or in the end we all face dire consequences as
a species.
Ördög
Either the neocons go or civilisation does!
lora...@cs.com
> DarkMatter has over simplified the issues:
>
> > Capitalism lets people simply die if they don't have money to buy the
> > things they need. It is very exploitative. There are many jobs where
> > people work hard but are paid too little to be able to buy the things
> > they need in life.
>
> Capitalism is the rule of the few over the many. This has always been
> so and always will be.
You mix the concept of 'exploitation' with that of 'capitalism'..
While you omit linking the concept of unfair 'exploitation' with that
of 'communism'.
"CAPITALISM is a social system based on the recognition of inalienable
rights in which people are free to produce and trade and thus
precondition an economic system in which all property is privately
owned[1][2] and operated for profit,[3] and in which investments,
distribution, income, production and pricing of goods and services are
determined through the operation of a market economy." - wiki
..
"In political economy, economics, and sociology, EXPLOITATION involves
a persistent social relationship in which certain persons are being
mistreated or unfairly used for the benefit of others. This
corresponds to one ethical conception of exploitation, that is, the
treatment of human beings as mere means to an end — or as mere
"objects". In different terms, "exploitation" refers to the use of
people as a resource, with little or no consideration of their well-
being. This can take the following basic forms:
-taking something off a person or group that rightfully belongs to
them
-short-changing people in trade
-directly or indirectly forcing somebody to work
-using somebody against his will, or without his consent or knowledge
-imposing an arbitrary differential treatment of people to the
advantage of some and the disadvantage of others (as in
ascriptive discrimination) "
..
The comparison, here, shows the failures of communism in comparison to
capitalism:
- Communist subject do not have inalienable rights
- Communist subjects are not free to produce and trade
- Communist subject cannot possess property that is privately owned
- Communist subjects do not participate in a market where the pricing
of goods and services are determined through the operation of a market
economy."
Capitalistic systems can be corrupted (as we in the US have seen
recently) to become exploitative.. but communism is based on the 'a
priori' assumption of exploitation.
Communism cannot exist without the exploitation of individual human
rights.
...
The few rule over the many? Yes.. that is how all political systems on
this planet operate.
The difference is that the communist few that rule over the many - are
not elected, and too often kill the many.
PS: Here is another book to add to your commune library:
'Conquest, R. (1978). Kolyma: The Arctic Death Camps'
Ördög
> Ördög <tz81qm...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
> > Capitalism is the rule of the few over the many. This has always been
> > so and always will be.
> You mix the concept of 'exploitation' with that of 'capitalism'...
Actually not.
When you regard the total sum of wealth a planet can provide for its
inhabitants you will realise that one can only get filthy rich at the
cost of others.
That is what capitalism is in all of its forms, be it moderate or an
outright monopole capitalism, or worse, imperialism, or even rightwing
fascism.
> While you omit linking the concept of unfair 'exploitation' with that
> of 'communism'.
Communism implies that exploitation should not occur at all. If it
does than there is something that went seriously wrong in the system.
Like the emergence of a personal cult (Stalin or Mao) or the emergence
of a privileged group hijacking the leadership with the source of
military power and is creating state capitalism to their own
benefits.
The point of communism is the cessation of exploitation.
But!
Of course, if your goal in life is to control and rip off others in
society you might find communism repressive.
If you are unwilling to do a decent day's work benefiting everyone in
society beside yourself than you might actually regard such a system
exploitative.
> "CAPITALISM is a social system based on the recognition of inalienable
> rights in which people are free to produce and trade and thus
> precondition an economic system in which all property is privately
> owned[1][2] and operated for profit,[3] and in which investments,
> distribution, income, production and pricing of goods and services are
> determined through the operation of a market economy." - wiki
One more good reason to take the content on Wiki with a grain of salt.
Rightwing dictatorships are always capitalistic. In such an
environment there is absolutely no free trade to speak of.
After all the ruling junta is usually in bed with the big
corporations.
> "In political economy, economics, and sociology, EXPLOITATION involves
> a persistent social relationship in which certain persons are being
> mistreated or unfairly used for the benefit of others.
At least partially I can go along with this interpretation.
For example in a large company where the CEO earns hundreds of times
more than those workers who are actually making the products and
deliver the services the company is selling there is absolutely no
question about who is exploiting whom.
> This
> corresponds to one ethical conception of exploitation, that is, the
> treatment of human beings as mere means to an end — or as mere
> "objects". In different terms, "exploitation" refers to the use of
> people as a resource, with little or no consideration of their well-
> being. This can take the following basic forms:
> -taking something off a person or group that rightfully belongs to
> them
> -short-changing people in trade
> -directly or indirectly forcing somebody to work
> -using somebody against his will, or without his consent or knowledge
> -imposing an arbitrary differential treatment of people to the
> advantage of some and the disadvantage of others (as in
> ascriptive discrimination) "
> ..
I can live with the description above.
> The comparison, here, shows the failures of communism in comparison to
> capitalism:
> - Communist subject do not have inalienable rights
Wrong. They do. It is an other matter that most political systems
calling themselves communistic were actually something else.
Specially so because they have denied their community such rights.
> - Communist subjects are not free to produce and trade
Sorry mate. I hate to disappoint you but this is not correct.
Communism does not exclusively and necessarily concern itself with the
existence of trade nor the fact of production.
But it lays down strong guidelines that should prevent the resulting
uneven distribution of the generated wealth.
> - Communist subject cannot possess property that is privately owned
Wrong again.
In communism it is the means of production that is community owned and
community controlled. Property that does not have effect on that
relationship is free from any control.
> - Communist subjects do not participate in a market where the pricing
> of goods and services are determined through the operation of a market
> economy."
Even in a communist society it is necessary to have some form of trade
and a market. Produced goods need to reach their target, those
individuals who use those goods.
But a "market economy" in the current capitalistic sense is not
compatible with the aims of maintaining an exploitation free society.
Furthermore, "market economies" do tend to produce a huge amount of
waste ( resources of all kinds) which on a finite world can not be
maintained forever.
> Capitalistic systems can be corrupted (as we in the US have seen
> recently) to become exploitative.. but communism is based on the 'a
> priori' assumption of exploitation.
A strange assertion with almost nothing behind it.
> Communism cannot exist without the exploitation of individual human
> rights.
Really? Who said so?
> The few rule over the many? Yes.. that is how all political systems on
> this planet operate.
The good old conservative argument.
A status quo which guarantees that the rich and mighty can maintain
their unchallenged rule over others at all cost must be maintained.
If for no better reason than because this has always been so. Correct?
Well, how about some progress?
> The difference is that the communist few that rule over the many - are
> not elected, and too often kill the many.
Which makes such system anything but communist. What was your point,
again?
> Kolyma: The Arctic Death Camps'
Oh, how exciting.
Of course, I hope you realise that you are debating someone who has
gained knowledge of the realities of the so called "communism" not in
a library but in real life.
I doubt that your reference books could tell me something I have not
known and understood before.
Ördög (The friendly Hungarian Devil in service of aus.politics and
Usenet)
DarkMatter
abilities. People are not equal in abilities. Some people for example
have superior memory and greater computational abilities than others.
This is especially noticeable in the chess games of world champions
Garry Kasparov and Vladimir Kramnik. Bill Gates got rich because he is
very gifted in business and marketing and Warren Buffet is very gifted
in investing.
DarkMatter
superior memory and greater computational abilities than others. This
is especially noticeable in the chess games of world champions Garry
Kasparov and Vladimir Kramnik. Bill Gates got rich because he is very
gifted in investing.
David Johnston
<odbo...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>lorad...@cs.com tells Usenet nothing new or unexpected:
>> Ördög <tz81qm...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>> > Capitalism is the rule of the few over the many. This has always been
>> > so and always will be.
>
>> You mix the concept of 'exploitation' with that of 'capitalism'...
>
>Actually not.
>When you regard the total sum of wealth a planet can provide for its
>inhabitants you will realise that one can only get filthy rich at the
>cost of others.
You mean "customers"?
Jerry Kraus
>Bill Gates got rich because he is very
> gifted in software,
Bill Gates hasn't written any software. He's stolen everything he's
used. Bill Gates got rich because his father was a corporation lawyer
and, from his teens, old Bill Gates was obsessed with enforcing
copyright law on software. Which is exactly what Bill Gates has spent
his career doing -- enforcing copyright law on software he stole from
other people. Bill Gates is a manipulator, a parasite and a
monopolist. Capitalist Scum.
John Galt
"Jerry Kraus" <jkrau...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:26ae8443-a231-4aa4...@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
[JG] I;m no fan of Gates, but you're flat out wrong. Gates bought the OS
from Digital Research, fair and square. DR was dumb, Gates was smart, and if
you have any character in you at all, you want smart to be rewarded.
He then sold the OS to IBM as the OS for the first PC, started cashing the
royalty checks, and the rest is history.
JG
Jerry Kraus
> "Jerry Kraus" <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
I'm sorry. I believe that's exactly what I just said.
David Johnston
Except for the part about buying things not being stealing.
Jerry Kraus
>
> - Show quoted text -
Depends on the conditions of purchase. Gates is a monopolist.
Microsoft just tried to "buy" Yahoo, very much against the will of its
CEO, Jerry Yang. Yang had to fight them off. With considerable
difficulty.
David Johnston
<jkrau...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Except for the part about buying things not being stealing. - Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>Depends on the conditions of purchase. Gates is a monopolist.
>Microsoft just tried to "buy" Yahoo, very much against the will of its
>CEO, Jerry Yang. Yang had to fight them off. With considerable
>difficulty.
He accepted that risk when he _sold_ stock in the corporation.
John Galt
[JG] Nope. Buying isn't stealing.
JG
Jerry Kraus
> On Fri, 16 May 2008 10:33:32 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Kraus
>
> >> Except for the part about buying things not being stealing. - Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> >Depends on the conditions of purchase. Gates is a monopolist.
> >Microsoft just tried to "buy" Yahoo, very much against the will of its
> >CEO, Jerry Yang. Yang had to fight them off. With considerable
> >difficulty.
>
> He accepted that risk when he _sold_ stock in the corporation.
Perhaps. But, control of Capital has nothing to do with broader
social needs. The fact that Gates controls money doesn't mean he's
performing a useful function.
And, monopolistic power can eliminate options from targets of control:
sell to us, or go out of business. Sounds a bit like stealing, to me.
John Galt
[JG] Unless you can show that Gates held a gun to DR's head, the conditions
of purchase are irrelevant. Two willing parties entered into a transaction
of their own free will.
Gates is a monopolist.
[JG] Irrelevant.
Microsoft just tried to "buy" Yahoo, very much against the will of its
CEO, Jerry Yang. Yang had to fight them off. With considerable
difficulty.
[JG] All perfectly legal. You're confusing what you don't like with what's
immoral and/or illegal.
JG
Jerry Kraus
>
> - Show quoted text -
You're confusing what's legal with what's moral.
John Galt
On May 16, 12:35 pm, David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 16 May 2008 10:33:32 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Kraus
>
> <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Except for the part about buying things not being stealing. - Hide
> >> quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> >Depends on the conditions of purchase. Gates is a monopolist.
> >Microsoft just tried to "buy" Yahoo, very much against the will of its
> >CEO, Jerry Yang. Yang had to fight them off. With considerable
> >difficulty.
>
> He accepted that risk when he _sold_ stock in the corporation.
Perhaps. But, control of Capital has nothing to do with broader
social needs. The fact that Gates controls money doesn't mean he's
performing a useful function.
[JG] Correct, but it doesn't mean that he is not, either.
And, monopolistic power can eliminate options from targets of control:
sell to us, or go out of business. Sounds a bit like stealing, to me.
[JG] It's not even closely related to stealing.
JG
John Galt
[JG] Never do. All of the above is also moral.
JG
Jerry Kraus
Ah, another Capitalist who is incapable of error as long as he is
making money. I could see you'd relate well to Gates.
John Galt
[JG] Non sequitur rubbish. The fact is that both activities involved an
offer to individuals to sell an asset which they chose to do so (or not) of
their own free will. There are few things more **moral** than the freedom to
do with an asset whatever one wishes.
Thus, the immoral agent is you.
JG
Jerry Kraus
Capitalist propaganda and Rubbish. Money is the only reality. Money
is the ultimate good. Money is the only morality. No wonder your
system is going down the toilet. Enjoy the ride. Along with your
money.
John Galt
[JG] Far from it. But, lets not get sidetracked. If you believe that a
person should ***not*** be able to enter into a free will transaction for
the purchase or a sale of an asset, explain why that's not totalitarianism,
and if you admit that it is, explain why totalitarianism is suddenly moral.
Don't waste our time with your puerile musings.
JG
Jerry Kraus
> "Jerry Kraus" <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> Don't waste our time with your puerile musings.
Talking to yourself is often a sign of mental instability, John.
Especially in neocons like yourself. Wouldn't you be happier talking
to your money? Or, at least your stock broker?
John Galt
On May 16, 1:30 pm, "John Galt" <whoisjohng...@bluebottle.com> wrote:
> "Jerry Kraus" <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> Don't waste our time with your puerile musings.
Talking to yourself is often a sign of mental instability, John.
[JG] Still waiting for the explanation of how two free individuals should
not be allowed to enter into a transaction for assets.
JG
Jerry Kraus
> "Jerry Kraus" <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> [JG] Still waiting for the explanation of how two free individuals should
> not be allowed to enter into a transaction for assets.
Well, gee, John, I guess it all depends on what we mean by "assets"
doesn't it? Something economists are quite incapable of agreeing on.
You see the whole problem with you Capitalist nuts is that you fail to
grasp that money isn't everything. It's an abstraction. Means
absolutely nothing.
John Galt
On May 16, 1:55 pm, "John Galt" <whoisjohng...@bluebottle.com> wrote:
> "Jerry Kraus" <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> [JG] Still waiting for the explanation of how two free individuals should
> not be allowed to enter into a transaction for assets.
Well, gee, John, I guess it all depends on what we mean by "assets"
doesn't it?
[JG] No. An asset is something you own. Could be a share of stock, could be
a lawn mower. Doesn't matter.
Now, answer the question.
JG
Jerry Kraus
> "Jerry Kraus" <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> Well, gee, John, I guess it all depends on what we mean by "assets"
> doesn't it?
>
> [JG] No. An asset is something you own. Could be a share of stock, could be
> a lawn mower. Doesn't matter.
>
Who owns what is up to the government. And the government changes all
the time. Try again.
DarkMatter
> You see the whole problem with you Capitalist nuts is that you fail to
> grasp that money isn't everything. It's an abstraction. Means
> absolutely nothing.
Everyone needs some minimal amount of money because without money it's
impossible to get things. And without being able to get things there
is no life. So yes money is everything or almost everything.
DarkMatter
> You see the whole problem with you Capitalist nuts is that you fail to
> grasp that money isn't everything. It's an abstraction. Means
> absolutely nothing.
Everyone needs some minimal amount of money because without money it's
impossible to get things like food, shelter and medicine. And without
being able to get these things, there is no life. So yes money is
everything or almost everything. Maybe it can't buy happiness but
everyone needs at least a minimal amount of it.
David Johnston
<jkrau...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On May 16, 12:35 pm, David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 May 2008 10:33:32 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Kraus
>>
>> <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> Except for the part about buying things not being stealing. - Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> >Depends on the conditions of purchase. Gates is a monopolist.
>> >Microsoft just tried to "buy" Yahoo, very much against the will of its
>> >CEO, Jerry Yang. Yang had to fight them off. With considerable
>> >difficulty.
>>
>> He accepted that risk when he _sold_ stock in the corporation.
>
>Perhaps. But, control of Capital has nothing to do with broader
>social needs.
Well then, it doesn't matter if Gates has it, right? Seeing as how it
doesn't affect anything...
The Trucker
Not until he decides to corner the oil futures market for August through
October.
--
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson
http://GreaterVoice.org/extend
David Johnston
Everyone who decides to call things they merely dislike by the name of
a crime does that.
Ördög
> Ördög <odbok...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
> >lorad...@cs.com tells Usenet nothing new or unexpected:
> >> Ördög <tz81qm...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
> >> > Capitalism is the rule of the few over the many. This has always been
> >> > so and always will be.
> >> You mix the concept of 'exploitation' with that of 'capitalism'...
> >Actually not.
> >When you regard the total sum of wealth a planet can provide for its
> >inhabitants you will realise that one can only get filthy rich at the
> >cost of others.
>
> You mean "customers"?
I mean the rest of the population, the lot. They might be primary
producers, they might be part of the distribution chain, they might be
manufacturing workers, they might be customers.
For example there are a great many Australian farmers who could sing a
bitter song about the activities of Woolworth and Coles.
I have a friend who lives in Tasmania and does casual jobs. Trimming a
whole apple tree earns him 40 cents. Considering the effort and the
conditions as well as the level of pay this is plain exploitation. And
one can't even be angry with the farmer since he earns little more
than that. Big capital (in this instance Woolworth) dictates the
prices and skims off the profits.
That is how capitalism works in the practice.
BTW this explains the inherent economic instability of the
contemporary consumer capitalism. Once large sections of the community
are forced to live on peanuts the consumption is reduced to a degree
where big capital starts to suffer too. But sadly never to the degree
the little people do.
Ördög (The friendly Hungarian Devil in service of aus.politics and
Usenet)
Either the neocons go or civilisation does!
SaPeIsMa
"Ördög" <odbo...@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
news:2670eb4f-a02b-4b65...@j33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
lorad...@cs.com tells Usenet nothing new or unexpected:
> Ördög <tz81qm...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
> > Capitalism is the rule of the few over the many. This has always been
> > so and always will be.
> You mix the concept of 'exploitation' with that of 'capitalism'...
#
# Actually not.
# When you regard the total sum of wealth a planet can provide for its
# inhabitants you will realise that one can only get filthy rich at the
# cost of others.
#
Total nonsense
Explain to us
who got poor when Bill Gates got rich ?
who got poor when all the other software developers got rich ?
who got poor when the founders and shareholders of Intel and
Hewlett-Packard and 3M, Medtronic, and millions of other companies got rich
?
That's the fatal flaw of Marxism
It ONLY thinks in terms of tangible assets and COMPLETELY IGNORES ANYTHING
that produces and intangible value
B J Foster
> On May 16, 12:35 pm, David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 May 2008 10:33:32 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Kraus
>>
>> <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> Except for the part about buying things not being stealing. - Hide quoted text -
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>> Depends on the conditions of purchase. Gates is a monopolist.
>>> Microsoft just tried to "buy" Yahoo, very much against the will of its
>>> CEO, Jerry Yang. Yang had to fight them off. With considerable
>>> difficulty.
>> He accepted that risk when he _sold_ stock in the corporation.
>
> Perhaps. But, control of Capital has nothing to do with broader
> social needs. The fact that Gates controls money doesn't mean he's
> performing a useful function.
Society taxes him and spends the money on 'useful functions'.
>
> And, monopolistic power can eliminate options from targets of control:
> sell to us, or go out of business. Sounds a bit like stealing, to me.
>
Sounds like the regulator is not doing it's job, to me
Ördög
> Communism is flawed because it assumes that people are equal in
> ability. People are not equal in ability. Some people for example have
> superior memory and greater computational abilities than others.
That is explained by genetic variability, the nurturing received as a
young child, access to proper education, etc.....
This does not prove that people aren't equal, only that they might be
good at one thing while absolutely hopeless at an other. For example I
can easily design and carry out a scientific laboratory experiment but
I am hopeless at repairing the plumbing at home.
This certainly does not indicate that I am a better person than the
plumber is, would you not agree?
> This
> is especially noticeable in the chess games of world champions Garry
> Kasparov and Vladimir Kramnik. Bill Gates got rich because he is very
> gifted in software, business and marketing and Warren Buffet is very
> gifted in investing.
All you have proven so far was that people are good at different
things, but not that their role from society's point of view you make
them a BETTER HUMAN.
So if people in end effect are equal than how can we justify that some
are forced to live under appalling conditions while others can't find
ways to burn their money fast enough!
What communism is trying to do is correcting the social imbalance.
John Galt
On May 16, 2:13 pm, "John Galt" <whoisjohng...@bluebottle.com> wrote:
> "Jerry Kraus" <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> Well, gee, John, I guess it all depends on what we mean by "assets"
> doesn't it?
>
> [JG] No. An asset is something you own. Could be a share of stock, could
> be
> a lawn mower. Doesn't matter.
>
Who owns what is up to the government.
[JG] I have never had anyone come to the goverment come up to me and take my
lawn mower, or for that matter, any asset of mine.
Try again.
JG
Keon
> > On May 16, 12:35 pm, David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 16 May 2008 10:33:32 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Kraus
> >>
> >> <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>> Except for the part about buying things not being stealing. - Hide quoted text -
> >>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>> Depends on the conditions of purchase. Gates is a monopolist.
> >>> Microsoft just tried to "buy" Yahoo, very much against the will of its
> >>> CEO, Jerry Yang. Yang had to fight them off. With considerable
> >>> difficulty.
> >> He accepted that risk when he _sold_ stock in the corporation.
> >
> > Perhaps. But, control of Capital has nothing to do with broader
> > social needs. The fact that Gates controls money doesn't mean he's
> > performing a useful function.
>
> Society taxes him and spends the money on 'useful functions
>
In fact, when Bush sent out checks recently and the nation is in substantial
debt, I never heard a single whimper from a Libertarian, or of one returning
the check.
Low taxes are great, the government borrowing money from foreigners to run
the military and the public service.
Nothing like "Capitalism". Doncha think?
Keon
> On Fri, 16 May 2008 21:56:02 +0000, David Johnston wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 16 May 2008 10:40:37 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Kraus
> > <jkrau...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >>On May 16, 12:35 pm, David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 16 May 2008 10:33:32 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Kraus
> >>>
> >>> <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>> >> Except for the part about buying things not being stealing. - Hide quoted text -
> >>>
> >>> >> - Show quoted text -
> >>>
> >>> >Depends on the conditions of purchase. Gates is a monopolist.
> >>> >Microsoft just tried to "buy" Yahoo, very much against the will of its
> >>> >CEO, Jerry Yang. Yang had to fight them off. With considerable
> >>> >difficulty.
> >>>
> >>> He accepted that risk when he _sold_ stock in the corporation.
> >>
> >>Perhaps. But, control of Capital has nothing to do with broader
> >>social needs.
> >
> > Well then, it doesn't matter if Gates has it, right? Seeing as how it
> > doesn't affect anything...
>
> Not until he decides to corner the oil futures market for August through
> October.
>
You've got to be kidding! Natural Gas has spiked.
Water and Natural Gas are the key proponents of the Alberta Oil sands.
There are two economies in Alberta, traditional crude from the earth and the
oil sands. Anyone into the traditional oil is fried now. No money to be
made!
South Alberta is running out of water too.
But still, the largest petrochemical industry in Canada is in Sarnia. Near
where the first oil strike in North America was discovered, 50 years before
Texas.
They get their oil from Alberta. The only pipeline in Canada that dosen't go
south to the USA.
The next wars will not be over petroleum, they will be about water.
Keon
> On Fri, 16 May 2008 10:40:37 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Kraus
> <jkrau...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >On May 16, 12:35 pm, David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 16 May 2008 10:33:32 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Kraus
> >>
> >> <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >> Except for the part about buying things not being stealing. - Hide quoted text -
> >>
> >> >> - Show quoted text -
> >>
> >> >Depends on the conditions of purchase. Gates is a monopolist.
> >> >Microsoft just tried to "buy" Yahoo, very much against the will of its
> >> >CEO, Jerry Yang. Yang had to fight them off. With considerable
> >> >difficulty.
> >>
> >> He accepted that risk when he _sold_ stock in the corporation.
> >
> >Perhaps. But, control of Capital has nothing to do with broader
> >social needs.
>
> Well then, it doesn't matter if Gates has it, right? Seeing as how it
> doesn't affect anything...
>
>
The reason?
He's a graduate of Queens University (Kingston Ontario) and now lives in the
USA.
The only bigger loons produced by the Canadian system are from McMaster in
Hamilton, but at least 3 guys from SCTV came from there!
lora...@cs.com
> lorad...@cs.com tells Usenet nothing new or unexpected:
>
> > Ördög <tz81qm...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
> > > Capitalism is the rule of the few over the many. This has always been
> > > so and always will be.
> > You mix the concept of 'exploitation' with that of 'capitalism'...
>
> When you regard the total sum of wealth a planet can provide for its
The same goes for all earthly manifestations of communist governments
to date.
The protelariate slaves have labored to transfer their wealth to the
state.. with these same states being run by communist elites - who
have lived well on the labor of 'the masses'.
The difference in the system is that 'the masses' can choose to opt
out of their contributory role - while the 'proletaiate' cannot.
> That is what capitalism is in all of it forms, be it moderate or an
> outright monopole capitalism, or worse, imperialism, or even rightwing
> fascism.
Translation, please.. communist jargon is often difficult to
understand.
> > While you omit linking the concept of unfair 'exploitation' with that
> > of 'communism'.
>
> Communism implies that exploitation should not occur at all.
But it has... on every earthly governmental manifestation.
Name one that has been non-exploitative or successful.
You cannot.
> If it
> does than there is something that went seriously wrong in the system.
Welcome to reality.
> Like the emergence of a personal cult (Stalin or Mao) or the emergence
> of a privileged group hijacking the leadership with the source of
> military power and is creating state capitalism to their own
> benefits.
> The point of communism is the cessation of exploitation.
> But!
> Of course, if your goal in life is to control and rip off others in
> society you might find communism repressive.
> If you are unwilling to do a decent day's work benefiting everyone in
> society beside yourself than you might actually regard such a system
> exploitative.
Like I said; Communism can only exist on an a-priori imposition of
exploitation;
A mandate that individuals must contribute to other people's welfare.
A capitalistic system does not impose such forced labor.
> > "CAPITALISM is a social system based on the recognition of inalienable
> > rights in which people are free to produce and trade and thus
> > precondition an economic system in which all property is privately
> > owned[1][2] and operated for profit,[3] and in which investments,
> > distribution, income, production and pricing of goods and services are
> > determined through the operation of a market economy." - wiki
>
> One more good reason to take the content on Wiki with a grain of salt.
> Rightwing dictatorships are always capitalistic.
Not really..
Was hitlerian Germany 'capitalist'?
No.. it was 'socialist' and 'fascist'.
> In such an
> environment there is absolutely no free trade to speak of.
> After all the ruling junta is usually in bed with the big
> corporations.
Give examples.. rather than constructing strawmen, please.
> > "In political economy, economics, and sociology, EXPLOITATION involves
> > a persistent social relationship in which certain persons are being
> > mistreated or unfairly used for the benefit of others.
>
> At least partially I can go along with this interpretation.
> For example in a large company where the CEO earns hundreds of times
> more than those workers who are actually making the products and
> deliver the services the company is selling there is absolutely no
> question about who is exploiting whom.
The capitalist workers can at least walk away from a bad deal.. but
the slaves of a communist system cannot...
Typically they got shot in the back of the head - and their families
were charged for the cost of the bullet.
(not very communistic of them - to charge for that bullet - was it?)
Jerry Kraus
> "Jerry Kraus" <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:e682cb27-7fe4-4ee4...@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On May 16, 2:13 pm, "John Galt" <whoisjohng...@bluebottle.com> wrote:
>
> > "Jerry Kraus" <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > Well, gee, John, I guess it all depends on what we mean by "assets"
> > doesn't it?
>
> > [JG] No. An asset is something you own. Could be a share of stock, could
> > be
> > a lawn mower. Doesn't matter.
>
> Who owns what is up to the government.
>
> [JG] I have never had anyone come to the goverment come up to me and take my
> lawn mower, or for that matter, any asset of mine.
>
> Try again.
>
> JG
>
> And the government changes all
> the time. Try again.
Just don't pay your taxes, John, and the government will take your
lawn mower. And tax rates change all the time. Try again. What is
an "asset" of yours is undefinable.
john...@gmail.com
> Communism implies that exploitation should not occur at all.
"people now rave everywhere, even under the guise of science, about
coming conditions of society in which "the exploiting character" is to
be absent:-- that sounds to my ears as if they promised to invent a
mode of life which should refrain from all organic functions.
"Exploitation" does not belong to a depraved, or imperfect and
primitive society: it belongs to the nature of the living being as a
primary organic function; it is a consequence of the intrinsic Will to
Power, which is precisely the Will to Life." (Nietzsche)
> If it
> does than there is something that went seriously wrong in the system.
> Like the emergence of a personal cult (Stalin or Mao) or the emergence
> of a privileged group hijacking the leadership with the source of
> military power and is creating state capitalism to their own
> benefits.
> The point of communism is the cessation of exploitation.
> But!
> Of course, if your goal in life is to control and rip off others in
> society you might find communism repressive.
Very pious. Good justification for damning dissidents. All Kulak
bastards!
> If you are unwilling to do a decent day's work benefiting everyone in
> society beside yourself than you might actually regard such a system
> exploitative.
>
And I might have a good point. I’d rather set my own value on how I
live.
john...@gmail.com
> DarkMatter <darkmatte...@yahoo.com> contemplates "natural selection":
>
> > Communism is flawed because it assumes that people are equal in
> > ability. People are not equal in ability. Some people for example have
> > superior memory and greater computational abilities than others.
>
> That is explained by genetic variability, the nurturing received as a
> young child, access to proper education, etc.....
>
> This does not prove that people aren't equal, only that they might be
> good at one thing while absolutely hopeless at an other. For example I
> can easily design and carry out a scientific laboratory experiment but
> I am hopeless at repairing the plumbing at home.
> This certainly does not indicate that I am a better person than the
> plumber is, would you not agree?
Do you think then that nobody is a better person than anyone else? A
conclusion either meaningless or bizarre.
>
> > This
> > is especially noticeable in the chess games of world champions Garry
> > Kasparov and Vladimir Kramnik. Bill Gates got rich because he is very
> > gifted in software, business and marketing and Warren Buffet is very
> > gifted in investing.
>
> All you have proven so far was that people are good at different
> things, but not that their role from society's point of view you make
> them a BETTER HUMAN.
>
> So if people in end effect are equal
Eh? How do you think you have proved that?
> than how can we justify that some
> are forced to live under appalling conditions while others can't find
> ways to burn their money fast enough!
"it is better that some should be unhappy, than that none should be
happy, which would be the case in a general state of equality" (Dr
Johnson)
>
> What communism is trying to do is correcting the social imbalance.
>
Not quite how it seemed to perectpive observers.
"Even
in Russia, however, the destructive force innate in
Bolshevism cannot be carried through to the end. It gains
impetus; proceeds more frantically and hysterically, but
must at last spend itself. It cannot be carried
through to the end because it depends on hate. It
presupposes a society in a perpetual ferment of hate or class
war. Certain individuals; sadists and some Jews and
cripples; frustrated intellectuals, can hate all their
lives; base their lives on hate; and a whole society can
be propagandised into hating for the duration, say
of a war, or a general election, but no whole
society can hate indefinitely. There comes a
limit."
(Malcolm Muggeridge Winter in Moscow P 105,)
Stan Pierce
<lora...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:26ad659f-aa79-49d4...@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On May 16, 5:28 am, Ördög <odbok...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
> lorad...@cs.com tells Usenet nothing new or unexpected:
> Communism implies that exploitation should not occur at all.
So Communists would not have funded the work of researchers who made
Penicillin, which led to the growth of Big Pharma, who's profits led to even
more life -saving drugs, which financed more higher education and led to the
amazing image scanning technology.
Exploitation of one new invention or innovation creates whole new
industries, which creates work for the masses, which brings them out of
agrarian poverty afflicting most of the world outside of white Euopeans.
Point out one innovation that was conceived out of Communism and benefited
the masses.
China at least has learnt that lesson...now brought out of it's appaling
poverty by Western inventive minds and technology and financing. Communism
has an appalling record of non-acheivement of living conditions.
Only the most ignorant of people could still advocate it's policies.
Communism is a religion, a Belief System. It failed because it can't
deliver.
Jerry Kraus
> <lorad...@cs.com> wrote in message
The Soviets launched the first space satellite, put the first man in
space, and developed the first space station.
SaPeIsMa
# The Soviets launched the first space satellite, put the first man in
# space, and developed the first space station.
#
They also sent more than 43 millions to their deaths in the Gulags
Now there's something to REALLY brag about
Jerry Kraus
> "Jerry Kraus" <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> Now there's something to REALLY brag about
Pure Capitatalist Propaganda. The Soviet Union's population grew, and
life expectancy increased dramatically, despite 43 millions killed by
Capitalist Hitler during the Second World War. That's where your "43
million victims of Stalin" come from! You are a liar!!! Stalin was a
saint compared to Hitler!
john...@gmail.com
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm
# Soviet Union, Stalin's regime (1924-53): 20 000 000 [make link]
* There are basically two schools of thought when it comes to the
number who died at Stalin's hands. There's the "Why doesn't anyone
realize that communism is the absolutely worst thing ever to hit the
human race, without exception, even worse than both world wars, the
slave trade and bubonic plague all put together?" school, and there's
the "Come on, stop exaggerating. The truth is horrifying enough
without you pulling numbers out of thin air" school. The two schools
are generally associated with the right and left wings of the
political spectrum, and they often accuse each other of being blinded
by prejudice, stubbornly refusing to admit the truth, and maybe even
having a hidden agenda. Also, both sides claim that recent access to
former Soviet archives has proven that their side is right.
* Here are a few illustrative estimates from the Big Numbers
school:
o Adler, N., Victims of Soviet Terror, 1993 cites these:
+ Chistyakovoy, V. (Neva, no.10): 20 million killed
during the 1930s.
+ Dyadkin, I.G. (Demograficheskaya statistika
neyestestvennoy smertnosti v SSSR 1918-1956 ): 56 to 62 million
"unnatural deaths" for the USSR overall, with 34 to 49 million under
Stalin.
+ Gold, John.: 50-60 million.
o Davies, Norman (Europe A History, 1998): c. 50 million
killed 1924-53, excluding WW2 war losses. This would divide (more or
less) into 33M pre-war and 17M after 1939.
o Rummel, 1990: 61,911,000 democides in the USSR 1917-87, of
which 51,755,000 occurred during the Stalin years. This divides up
into:
+ 1923-29: 2,200,000 (plus 1M non-democidal famine
deaths)
+ 1929-39: 15,785,000 (plus 2M non-democidal famine)
+ 1939-45: 18,157,000
+ 1946-54: 15,613,000 (plus 333,000 non-democidal
famine)
+ TOTAL: 51,755,000 democides and 3,333,000 non-demo.
famine
o William Cockerham, Health and Social Change in Russia and
Eastern Europe: 50M+
o Wallechinsky: 13M (1930-32) + 7M (1934-38)
+ Cited by Wallechinsky:
# Medvedev, Roy (Let History Judge): 40 million.
# Solzhenitsyn, Aleksandr: 60 million.
o MEDIAN: 51 million for the entire Stalin Era; 20M during
the 1930s.
* And from the Lower Numbers school:
o Nove, Alec ("Victims of Stalinism: How Many?" in J. Arch
Getty (ed.) Stalinist Terror: New Perspectives, 1993): 9,500,000
"surplus deaths" during the 1930s.
o Cited in Nove:
+ Maksudov, S. (Poteri naseleniya SSSR, 1989): 9.8
million abnormal deaths between 1926 and 1937.
+ Tsaplin, V.V. ("Statistika zherty naseleniya v 30e
gody" 1989): 6,600,000 deaths (hunger, camps and prisons) between the
1926 and 1937 censuses.
+ Dugin, A. ("Stalinizm: legendy i fakty" 1989):
642,980 counterrevolutionaries shot 1921-53.
+ Muskovsky Novosti (4 March 1990): 786,098 state
prisoners shot, 1931-53.
o Gordon, A. (What Happened in That Time?, 1989, cited in
Adler, N., Victims of Soviet Terror, 1993): 8-9 million during the
1930s.
o Ponton, G. (The Soviet Era, 1994): cites an 1990 article
by Milne, et al., that excess deaths 1926-39 were likely 3.5 million
and at most 8 million.
o MEDIAN: 8.5 Million during the 1930s.
* As you can see, there's no easy compromise between the two
schools. The Big Numbers are so high that picking the midpoint between
the two schools would still give us a Big Number. It may appear to be
a rather pointless argument -- whether it's fifteen or fifty million,
it's still a huge number of killings -- but keep in mind that the
population of the Soviet Union was 164 million in 1937, so the upper
estimates accuse Stalin of killing nearly 1 out of every 3 of his
people, an extremely Polpotian level of savagery. The lower numbers,
on the other hand, leave Stalin with plenty of people still alive to
fight off the German invasion.
* [Letter]
* Although it's too early to be taking sides with absolute
certainty, a consensus seems to be forming around a death toll of 20
million. This would adequately account for all documented nastiness
without straining credulity:
o In The Great Terror (1969), Robert Conquest suggested that
the overall death toll was 20 million at minimum -- and very likely
50% higher, or 30 million. This would divide roughly as follows: 7M in
1930-36; 3M in 1937-38; 10M in 1939-53. By the time he wrote The Great
Terror: A Re-assessment (1992), Conquest was much more confident that
20 million was the likeliest death toll.
o Britannica, "Stalinism": 20M died in camps, of famine,
executions, etc., citing Medvedev
o Brzezinski: 20-25 million, dividing roughly as follows: 7M
destroying the peasantry; 12M in labor camps; 1M excuted during and
after WW2.
o Daniel Chirot:
+ "Lowest credible" estimate: 20M
+ "Highest": 40M
+ Citing:
# Conquest: 20M
# Antonov-Ovseyenko: 30M
# Medvedev: 40M
o Courtois, Stephane, Black Book of Communism (Le Livre Noir
du Communism): 20M for the whole history of Soviet Union, 1917-91.
+ Essay by Nicolas Werth: 15M
+ [Ironic observation: The Black Book of Communism
seems to vote for Hitler as the answer to the question of who's worse,
Hitler (25M) or Stalin (20M).]
o John Heidenrich, How to Prevent Genocide: A Guide for
Policymakers, Scholars, and the Concerned Citizen (2001): 20M, incl.
+ Kulaks: 7M
+ Gulag: 12M
+ Purge: 1.2M (minus 50,000 survivors)
o Adam Hochschild, The Unquiet Ghost: Russians Remember
Stalin: directly responsible for 20 million deaths.
o Tina Rosenberg, The Haunted Land: Facing Europes Ghosts
After Communism (1995): upwards of 25M
o Time Magazine (13 April 1998): 15-20 million.
* AVERAGE: Of the 17 estimates of the total number of victims of
Stalin, the median is 30 million.
* Individual Gulags etc.
o Kolyma
o Kuropaty
o Vorkuta
o Bykivnia
* Famine, 1926-38
o Richard Overy, Russia's War (1997): 4.2M in Ukraine + 1.7M
in Kazakhstan
o Green, Barbara ("Stalinist Terror and the Question of
Genocide: the Great Famine" in Rosenbaum, Is the Holocaust Unique?)
cites these sources for the number who died in the famine:
+ Nove: 3.1-3.2M in Ukraine, 1933
+ Maksudov: 4.4M in Ukraine, 1927-38
+ Mace: 5-7M in Ukraine
+ Osokin: 3.35M in USSR, 1933
+ Wheatcraft: 4-5M in USSR, 1932-33
+ Conquest:
# Total, USSR, 1926-37: 11M
# 1932-33: 7M
# Ukraine: 5M
Jerry Kraus
Uh...Moron...the POPULATION GREW!!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_Soviet_Union
January 1926 : 148,656,000*
January 1937: 162,500,000*
January 1939: 168,524,000*
If Stalin killed a third of the population -- he started with 148
millions-- combined with normal mortality given life expectancy in the
40's in Russia at the time, the total population would have been cut
in half!
You are a Nazi and a Hitler apologist. Sieg Heil!!
john...@gmail.com
From that you argue the very eccentric thesis that Stalin did not kill
a lot of his own people?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_Soviet_Union
>
> January 1926 : 148,656,000*
> January 1937: 162,500,000*
> January 1939: 168,524,000*
>
> If Stalin killed a third of the population
I never suggested he did.
>-- he started with 148
> millions-- combined with normal mortality given life expectancy in the
> 40's in Russia at the time, the total population would have been cut
> in half!
>
> You are a Nazi and a Hitler apologist. Sieg Heil!!
An extraordinary conclusion. You are merely an unreconstructed
Bolshevik bigot.
Jerry Kraus
>
> - Show quoted text -
Apparently you cannot do simple arithmetic. I would recommend Grades
1-6 mathematics. Get back to me when you're done.
john...@gmail.com
Nor can most modern historians according to you then:-
john...@gmail.com
http://www.cyberussr.com/rus/revision.html
"Revisionists" vs. anti-Soviets
Readers should be aware that, just as there are Nazi Holocaust
"revisionists" who claimed the Holocaust of the Jews never happened
(or was grossly exaggerated), there are also Stalin "revisionists" who
would downsize his death toll from the commonly accepted 10-20 million
to a few tens or hundreds of thousands. Stalin revisionists are to be
found among nostalgic anti-"reform" Communists in Russia, and among
some on the "academic left" in the USA, who wish to remove a principal
moral justification for US anti-Communism in the Cold War.
Collectivization (1929-1933)
No reputable scholar disputes the bloody toll of
Collectivization (1929-33), 6 to 10 million peasants, or even more.
The losses came in two phases. The first wave was "dekulakization,"
the arrest, execution, and/or exile of all suspected political
opponents in the villages, not only rich peasants ("kulaks"), but also
many poorer peasants, eg those supporting the church or opposing
Collectivization. The second wave was an artificial famine (1932-33),
whose toll varied greatly by region. Ukraine, the North Caucasus, and
the Lower Volga suffered terribly, while the highest death rate of all
was among ethnic Kazakhs in the Kazakh S.S.R., perhaps 25% - 40%. Many
other regions, eg around Moscow, suffered few if any famine deaths.
The proof came with the 1937 census, which came up with a
population (163-164 million) 14 million less than what the government
had projected (a 3 million [2%] per year increase from the 1926 figure
of 147 million; modern readers should be aware that such high growth
rates were normal in the decades before cheap and universally
available birth control). 3 of the missing 14 million might simply be
births that didn't take place in a time of trauma, but the other 11
million have a bloodier provenance. The 1937 census was suppressed,
and its directors arrested as saboteurs.
Jerry Kraus
>
> - Show quoted text -
You are correct, my friend. Most modern historians cannot do simple
arithmetic. They are too blinded by their prejudices and training to
even do simple arithmetic. As I have quite clearly demonstrated.
Interesting, no?
Jerry Kraus
>
> - Show quoted text -
There's no indication that fertility in the Soviet Union was generally
higher than 2.3 children per family. Your figures would require
fertility rates of triple or more that. There is no evidence
whatsoever for this. NONE.
john...@gmail.com
I have never met a Jew whose close relatives died in Nazi death camps.
I do know a Russian woman both of whose grandfathers died in Stalin's
death camps. If anyone is blinded is is you by your repulsive
ideology. You ought to be ashamed of yourself. Try reading
Solzhenitsyn.
Jerry Kraus
>
> - Show quoted text -
Solzhenitsyn is a supposed "victim" of Stalin who survived 10 years in
these supposed "death camps" and is now living comfortably into his
90th years. When he got cancer in the Gulag, they sent him to a
Cancer Ward -- the basis for one of his books -- and cured him of
cancer. This, in the 1940's, when cancer was a death sentence in the
U.S. This hardly sounds like Auschwitz to me. Families of Gulag
workers -- these were work camps, not death camps -- regularly visted
the workers to GET FOOD FROM THEM! The Gulag workers were generally
well fed, because they worked better that way.
It was a repressive system, but it was a healthy one. Life expectancy
increased by 50% for the AVERAGE RUSSIAN under Stalin, far more than
in the West during the same period of time. Stalin saved 35 million
lives through his reforms. He executed 2 million to foster them. He
considered it to be a reasonable tradeoff. He was ruthless, but he
was effective. And he was not genocidal. That is a fascist lie.
john...@gmail.com
& if Hitler killed 6 million Jews, that was also with benevolent
intentions.
> He
> considered it to be a reasonable tradeoff. He was ruthless, but he
> was effective. And he was not genocidal. That is a fascist lie.
http://www.aerobiologicalengineering.com/wxk116/sjk/kolyma7.htm
CHAPTER 7
The research of British historian Robert Conquest, author of the
book "Kolyma," produced some gruesome information on the subject of
mortality rate. According to him the death rate among the prisoners
reached 30% in the first year and almost total in the second. The
factors which contributed to such a high loss of life among the
prisoners, in the first place, were the climatic conditions in winter
which resulted in death and amputations due to frostbite; this was
followed by the sub-marginal rations of food which destroyed men
physically and mentally; and finely sickness of epidemic proportion
like scurvy and dysentery which also took their toll. The above
sicknesses did not qualify for hospitalization and treatment.
The exact figures from Kolyma have not yet been released or
identified, but Pohl (1997) has published figures from the Soviet
archives on the "official" death count from all of the labor camps.
The annual number of deaths in these camps, particularly around the
wars years, may have be grossly understated, but is nevertheless
appalling.
ChartObject DEATHS IN SOVIET LABOR CAMPS
In total, between 1937 and 1953, as estimated by Robert
Conquest, Kolyma consumed almost 3 million lives, mainly natives of
the Soviet Union. Numerically the Polish losses were a mere fraction
of the total, but less than 5% of them survived. Of the 12,000 Poles
sent to that region between 1940 and 1941 only 583 men returned alive.
The following reports of those who survived give us some insight into
the conditions experienced by prisoners within the penal system of
Kolyma at that time. These are various excerpts from books and stories
written on the subject:
"...it was uncommon for a work force of 2000 to 3000 to be able
to send only 100 to the gold face...
...that of 3000 katorga prisoners sent to Maxim Gorky mine in
1944 only 500 were healthy enough to be transferred to Laso the
following season...
...No Polish prisoners at all returned of 3000 sent to Chukhots
camps...
...In Maldyak out of total 20 Poles in my group 16 died...
...at Komsomolets, there were only 46 survivors out of 436
men...
...at 10th OLP in Magadan out of total 500 Poles only 130
survived...
This dual-purpose system was designed to eliminate all
politically undesirable elements and to provided precious gold for the
Soviet Treasury. It also made Kolyma into the burial grounds for many
high-ranking communists whom for one reason or another fell out of
favor. Many of them experienced, before their deaths, the hardships of
laboring in gold mines before cold, hunger, sickness and misery
consumed their lives.
The hero of the widely publicized Kirow trial, Iwan Zaporozec,
became a prisoner in Kolyma before he was finally executed in 1937.
The first director of the "frozen land," Rheingold Berzin, met his end
in one of the arctic camps which he once built and supervised. This
was his punishment for some false accusation that he conspired with
Japan to hand over Kolyma to this eastern neighbor of the Soviets.
Next, the man who instituted his own kind of terror in the camps under
his rule, Garagin, disappeared somewhere in the North in one of the
gold mines. His successor Wishniowiecki, met with the same fate -
ironically brought to the trial for the death of prisoners whom he
took on expedition to find new gold fields. The fate of other
administrators such as Gakajev, Drabkin and Nikishow may never be
known.
In this enormous state enterprise, involving millions of people,
in unheard-of hardship, misery and death, there was another side which
should be taken into account. This balancing item was the precious
gold itself and its output. Again, relying on Robert Conquest's
calculations, its production started with a few tons in the first year
and reached 400 to 500 tons the year at the peak of human sacrifice.
Measuring the total estimated tonnage against the loss of life
the account would place no more than one kilo of gold for each human
life lost in the process of production. In present terms of gold value
it would amount from $16,000 to $17,000 per lost life. In practice
this was the unit which in its final assessment governed the cost of
the precious metal.
The outbreak of war with Nazi Germany in 1941, and initial heavy
losses on the front, forced the Soviet leaders to revise their policy
towards the slave labor force. Seeing that the sources of labor were
limited in their potential, they brought in some drastic changes for
the benefit of the imprisoned men. Now that manpower became scarce due
to the war, it became more appreciated. The harsh treatment of
1937-1942 was abandoned as a policy, which allowed for a gradual
improvement of living conditions in the labor camps. With this, the
mortality rate substantially decreased. For several years thereafter
the Soviet Union still remained a slave empire, but this time one
which was more tolerant of its prisoners. With this the idiom
"dokhodiaga" or "gonner" came to an end in the penal lingo.
When, with victory over Germany in 1945, losses on the front
came to an end a new slave labor situation had developed. This
situation opened new sources of labor from the newly subdued people.
The newcomers to the system were German and Japanese POWs, Ukrainian
nationalists, Rumanians and, ironically, members of the Polish
Underground Army, who had helped the Soviet war effort. All these men
filled in the empty spaces of their deceased predecessors. However,
they found the living conditions more tolerable than those who had
been in Kolyma before them did. Many of them served their ten years
sentence, and with further changes of political climate inside the
Soviet Union, were allowed to return to their home countries.
RETURN TO INDEX NEXT CHAPTER
Jerry Kraus
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
You are a Nazi. My congratulations.
Communism has its points. Nazism doesn't. Apparently, you disagree?
john...@gmail.com
>
> You are a Nazi. My congratulations.
>
> Communism has its points. Nazism doesn't. Apparently, you disagree?
I do but that does not make me a Nazi. There are other political
options.
john...@gmail.com
Communism is a doctrine of murderous hatred. It inspires murderous
hatred in return. I am the sort of person that communists like you
would want to liquidate. I wouldn't liquidate you. I am much more
tolerant.
Jerry Kraus
Oh I'm not a communist. It's too extreme. But, it has its points.
Stalin did more good than harm. The fact that you are incapable of
grasping that something can do some damage, but still do a lot of good
merely indicates your stupidity. You're too insignificant and stupid
to be worth the trouble of liquidating. Don't flatter yourself!
john...@gmail.com
>
> Oh I'm not a communist. It's too extreme. But, it has its points.
Possibly it has. I am not sorry it existed.
> Stalin did more good than harm.
That is entirely relative and very hard to assess.
> The fact that you are incapable of
> grasping that something can do some damage, but still do a lot of good
> merely indicates your stupidity.
Your position is morally loathsome. You appear to be giving your
approval to the mass exterminations that took place. 'Some damage'
would hardly be an adequate phrase if you or your dear one's were
caught up in that.
And you, likewise, cannot grasp that Hitler did a lot of good by the
standards you are applying.
> You're too insignificant and stupid
> to be worth the trouble of liquidating. Don't flatter yourself!
A lot of very insignificant people got liquidated. Please inform
yourself better.
Jerry Kraus
As I said, I'm not a communist. I'm merely pointing out that Stalin,
unlike Hitler, did more good than harm. He killed a lot of people,
but he helped more people than he killed. Which is why Stalin is
still rather popular in Russia. And, he is. Check it out. Hitler is
NOT popular in Germany. He is sometimes used as an anti-establishment
martyr by eccentrics, but he's considered to be a dangerous nut by the
vast majority of modern Germans. Not so Stalin, in Russia.
I said that I wouldn't liquidate you. I have no idea what Stalin
would have done with you. Probably nothing. It was mainly the
important people who got liquidated. Being in the Politburo was
virtually a death sentence.
john...@gmail.com
> On May 19, 10:30 am, john....@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > > Oh I'm not a communist. It's too extreme. But, it has its points.
>
> > Possibly it has. I am not sorry it existed.
>
> > > Stalin did more good than harm.
>
> > That is entirely relative and very hard to assess.
>
> > > The fact that you are incapable of
> > > grasping that something can do some damage, but still do a lot of good
> > > merely indicates your stupidity.
>
> > Your position is morally loathsome. You appear to be giving your
> > approval to the mass exterminations that took place. 'Some damage'
> > would hardly be an adequate phrase if you or your dear one's were
> > caught up in that.
>
> > And you, likewise, cannot grasp that Hitler did a lot of good by the
> > standards you are applying.
>
> > > You're too insignificant and stupid
> > > to be worth the trouble of liquidating. Don't flatter yourself!
>
> > A lot of very insignificant people got liquidated. Please inform
> > yourself better.
>
> As I said, I'm not a communist. I'm merely pointing out that Stalin,
> unlike Hitler, did more good than harm.
And that is impossible to quantify.
> He killed a lot of people,
> but he helped more people than he killed. Which is why Stalin is
> still rather popular in Russia. And, he is.
With Peter the Great and Ivan the Terrible. And Genghis Khan is very
popular in Mongolia.
> Check it out.
I have been shown round his birthplace in Georgia by an adoring guide.
> Hitler is
> NOT popular in Germany. He is sometimes used as an anti-establishment
> martyr by eccentrics, but he's considered to be a dangerous nut by the
> vast majority of modern Germans. Not so Stalin, in Russia.
Hitler lost the war, Stalin won it. That is the difference.
>
> I said that I wouldn't liquidate you. I have no idea what Stalin
> would have done with you. Probably nothing. It was mainly the
> important people who got liquidated. Being in the Politburo was
> virtually a death sentence.
I don't care about the Politburo. They were fair game.
Jerry Kraus
> On 19 May, 16:45, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hitler lost the war, Stalin won it. That is the difference.
NO. The difference is, Stalin mainly did good, Hitler mainly did
evil. They were both ruthless, but Stalin was sane, Hitler was
insane. That's exactly why Stalin won, and Hitler lost. Did you
think it was just luck?
john...@gmail.com
> On May 19, 11:07 am, john....@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On 19 May, 16:45, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Hitler lost the war, Stalin won it. That is the difference.
>
> NO. The difference is, Stalin mainly did good, Hitler mainly did
> evil.
That is a fatuous dichotomy. Hitler was good for some people and so
was Stalin.
> They were both ruthless, but Stalin was sane,
That has been disputed.
>Hitler was
> insane.
That too is a matter of opinion. Probably you would call Hitler
insane because you don't like the ideas which were shared by a
majority of the German people.
> That's exactly why Stalin won, and Hitler lost. Did you
> think it was just luck?
There was an element of luck in the severity of the winter. There were
other factors besides the mental health of the two dictators.
Jerry Kraus
There was no luck involved. Hitler declared war on the British even
though he had no navy. How do you invade England with no Navy???
Hitler declared war on Russia even though he certainly was aware what
had happened to Napoleon, and was following a very similar strategy --
hoping for a quick victory against a massive enemy in unfamiliar
territory with a killing climate. Hitler never had a prayer. One of
the reasons he caused as much trouble as he did was that people tended
not to take him seriously: everything Hitler did was so utterly
ridiculous, that people tended not to defend themselves adequately
against his insanity. So, he did an enormous amount of damage until
everyone decided, at last, that they had to finish him off. Germans
just after the second world war tended to try to argue that the Nazis
could have won the war, because they had an investment in the system:
they don't now. The Nazis were self-destructive loons from day one.
Stalin and the communists were brutal, highly effective pragmatists.
john...@gmail.com
> On May 19, 1:16 pm, john....@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 19 May, 18:27, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 19, 11:07 am, john....@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > On 19 May, 16:45, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > Hitler lost the war, Stalin won it. That is the difference.
>
> > > NO. The difference is, Stalin mainly did good, Hitler mainly did
> > > evil.
>
> > That is a fatuous dichotomy. Hitler was good for some people and so
> > was Stalin.
>
> > > They were both ruthless, but Stalin was sane,
>
> > That has been disputed.
>
> > >Hitler was
> > > insane.
>
> > That too is a matter of opinion. Probably you would call Hitler
> > insane because you don't like the ideas which were shared by a
> > majority of the German people.
>
> > > That's exactly why Stalin won, and Hitler lost. Did you
> > > think it was just luck?
>
> > There was an element of luck in the severity of the winter. There were
> > other factors besides the mental health of the two dictators.
>
> There was no luck involved. Hitler declared war on the British even
> though he had no navy.
Britain declared war on Germany.
> How do you invade England with no Navy???
> Hitler declared war on Russia even though he certainly was aware what
> had happened to Napoleon, and was following a very similar strategy --
> hoping for a quick victory against a massive enemy in unfamiliar
> territory with a killing climate.
http://www.seaclimate.com/3/3_22.html
is a well-known fact that the German Army within a few months of the
invasion of Russia in June 1941, encountered winter conditions in
Western Russia, the severity of which cannot be imagined. It was so
much out of tune with the climatic records over many years and it is
not surprising that the German armies had been badly prepared to face
it. In so far they fell prey to a similar misjudgement as did the
Russian Army in Finland in December 1939.
> Hitler never had a prayer. One of
> the reasons he caused as much trouble as he did was that people tended
> not to take him seriously: everything Hitler did was so utterly
> ridiculous, that people tended not to defend themselves adequately
> against his insanity
That is not a unaminous view among historians.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A.J.P._Taylor
Taylor's thesis was that Hitler was not the demoniacal figure of
popular imagination but in foreign affairs a normal German leader.
Citing Fritz Fischer, he argued that the foreign policy of the Third
Reich was the same as those of the Weimar Republic and the Second
Reich. Moreover, in a partial break with his view of German history
advocated in The Course of German History, he argued that Hitler was
not just a normal German leader but also a normal Western leader. As a
normal Western leader, Hitler was no better or worse than Stresemann,
Chamberlain or Daladier. His argument was that Hitler wished to make
Germany the strongest power in Europe but he did not want or plan war.
The outbreak of war in 1939 was an unfortunate accident caused by
mistakes on everyone's part.
Notably, Taylor portrayed Hitler as a grasping opportunist with no
beliefs other than the pursuit of power and anti-Semitism. He argued
that Hitler did not possess any sort of programme and his foreign
policy was one of drift and seizing chances as they offered
themselves. He did not even consider Hitler's anti-Semitism unique: he
argued that millions of Germans and Austrians were just as ferociously
anti-Semitic as Hitler and there was no reason to single out Hitler
for sharing the beliefs of millions of others.
Taylor argued that the basic problem with an interwar Europe was a
flawed Treaty of Versailles that was sufficiently onerous to ensure
that the overwhelming majority of Germans would always hate it but
insufficiently onerous that it failed to destroy Germany's potential
to be a Great Power once more. In this way, Taylor argued that the
Versailles Treaty was destabilising, for sooner or later the innate
power of Germany that the Allies had declined to destroy in 1918-1919
would inevitably reassert itself against the Versailles treaty and the
international system established by Versailles that the Germans
regarded as unjust and thus had no interest in preserving. Though
Taylor argued that the Second World War was not inevitable and that
the Versailles treaty was nowhere near as harsh as contemporaries like
John Maynard Keynes believed, what he regarded as a flawed peace
settlement made the war more likely than not.
>So, he did an enormous amount of damage until
> everyone decided, at last, that they had to finish him off. Germans
> just after the second world war tended to try to argue that the Nazis
> could have won the war, because they had an investment in the system:
> they don't now. The Nazis were self-destructive loons from day one.
> Stalin and the communists were brutal, highly effective pragmatists.
And Stalin a military genius and the purges entirely rational
phenomena?
The Trucker
> On May 19, 1:16 pm, john....@gmail.com wrote:
>> On 19 May, 18:27, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On May 19, 11:07 am, john....@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> > > On 19 May, 16:45, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > > Hitler lost the war, Stalin won it. That is the difference.
>>
>> > NO. The difference is, Stalin mainly did good, Hitler mainly did
>> > evil.
>>
>> That is a fatuous dichotomy. Hitler was good for some people and so
>> was Stalin.
>>
>> > They were both ruthless, but Stalin was sane,
>>
>> That has been disputed.
>>
>> >Hitler was
>> > insane.
>>
>> That too is a matter of opinion. Probably you would call Hitler
>> insane because you don't like the ideas which were shared by a
>> majority of the German people.
>>
>> > That's exactly why Stalin won, and Hitler lost. Did you
>> > think it was just luck?
>>
>> There was an element of luck in the severity of the winter. There were
>> other factors besides the mental health of the two dictators.
>
> There was no luck involved. Hitler declared war on the British even
> though he had no navy. How do you invade England with no Navy???
I will change one sentence:
Bush declared war on Iraq even though he certainly was aware of what had
happened to the Brits and was following a very similar strategy --
> Hitler declared war on Russia even though he certainly was aware what
> had happened to Napoleon, and was following a very similar strategy --
> hoping for a quick victory against a massive enemy in unfamiliar
> territory with a killing climate. Hitler never had a prayer. One of
> the reasons he caused as much trouble as he did was that people tended
> not to take him seriously: everything Hitler did was so utterly
> ridiculous, that people tended not to defend themselves adequately
> against his insanity. So, he did an enormous amount of damage until
> everyone decided, at last, that they had to finish him off. Germans
> just after the second world war tended to try to argue that the Nazis
> could have won the war, because they had an investment in the system:
> they don't now. The Nazis were self-destructive loons from day one.
> Stalin and the communists were brutal, highly effective pragmatists.
De ja vu all over again.
Echos from the past with a different name almost every day here on
alt.politics.economics The insanity could have prevailed had we all
"invested" in it.
--
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson
http://GreaterVoice.org/extend
Jerry Kraus
>
> - Show quoted text -
What's really weird is that this "john" right-wing loon I'm arguing
with is trying to suggest that Hitler was RATIONAL!!! Yes, he's
trying to say that Hitler was one right reasonable dude, certainly no
more unreasonable than Stalin. Stalin was ruthless, Hitler was
insane. There is a difference.
john...@gmail.com
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> What's really weird is that this "john" right-wing loon I'm arguing
> with is trying to suggest that Hitler was RATIONAL!!! Yes, he's
> trying to say that Hitler was one right reasonable dude, certainly no
> more unreasonable than Stalin. Stalin was ruthless, Hitler was
> insane. There is a difference.
I don't agree with Hitler's idea of enslaving the Russians. I think it
was deplorable, I would be for Stalin and against Hitler on that one.
Hitler's ideas did have a logic to them, otherwise they would hardly
have captivated a sophisticated and intelligent people like the
Germans. Is that what makes me a right wing loon? The left does not
have a monopoly of rationality, though you probably think it does,
being very simple minded.
Jerry Kraus
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > What's really weird is that this "john" right-wing loon I'm arguing
> > with is trying to suggest that Hitler was RATIONAL!!! Yes, he's
> > trying to say that Hitler was one right reasonable dude, certainly no
> > more unreasonable than Stalin. Stalin was ruthless, Hitler was
> > insane. There is a difference.
>
> I don't agree with Hitler's idea of enslaving the Russians. I think it
> was deplorable, I would be for Stalin and against Hitler on that one.
> Hitler's ideas did have a logic to them, otherwise they would hardly
> have captivated a sophisticated and intelligent people like the
> Germans. Is that what makes me a right wing loon? The left does not
> have a monopoly of rationality, though you probably think it does,
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well, John, why don't you visit Germany these days and explain just
how rational you think Hitler was, and how reasonable his policies
were. Give a nice public talk on a street corner expressing your ever
so reasonable views on Hitler. They'll give you public housing for a
year or two. Not luxurious, just three square meals a day.
john...@gmail.com
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > What's really weird is that this "john" right-wing loon I'm arguing
> > > with is trying to suggest that Hitler was RATIONAL!!! Yes, he's
> > > trying to say that Hitler was one right reasonable dude, certainly no
> > > more unreasonable than Stalin. Stalin was ruthless, Hitler was
> > > insane. There is a difference.
>
> > I don't agree with Hitler's idea of enslaving the Russians. I think it
> > was deplorable, I would be for Stalin and against Hitler on that one.
> > Hitler's ideas did have a logic to them, otherwise they would hardly
> > have captivated a sophisticated and intelligent people like the
> > Germans. Is that what makes me a right wing loon? The left does not
> > have a monopoly of rationality, though you probably think it does,
> > being very simple minded.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Well, John, why don't you visit Germany these days and explain just
> how rational you think Hitler was, and how reasonable his policies
> were. Give a nice public talk on a street corner expressing your ever
> so reasonable views on Hitler. They'll give you public housing for a
> year or two. Not luxurious, just three square meals a day.
You are, I am sorry to say quite incapable of honest argument. I have
read a book by Stalin, the Foundations of Marxist Leninism, and I have
also read Mein Kampf. I did not find either of them insane, but that
does not mean I have to agree with them. How old are you, 13? Stalin
had a programme with a lot of hate in it and Hitler had a different
one. Both were logical. I don't think I said reasonable did I?
john...@gmail.com
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > What's really weird is that this "john" right-wing loon I'm arguing
> > > with is trying to suggest that Hitler was RATIONAL!!! Yes, he's
> > > trying to say that Hitler was one right reasonable dude, certainly no
> > > more unreasonable than Stalin. Stalin was ruthless, Hitler was
> > > insane. There is a difference.
>
> > I don't agree with Hitler's idea of enslaving the Russians. I think it
> > was deplorable, I would be for Stalin and against Hitler on that one.
> > Hitler's ideas did have a logic to them, otherwise they would hardly
> > have captivated a sophisticated and intelligent people like the
> > Germans. Is that what makes me a right wing loon? The left does not
> > have a monopoly of rationality, though you probably think it does,
> > being very simple minded.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Well, John, why don't you visit Germany these days and explain just
> how rational you think Hitler was, and how reasonable his policies
> were. Give a nice public talk on a street corner expressing your ever
> so reasonable views on Hitler. They'll give you public housing for a
> year or two. Not luxurious, just three square meals a day.
And aren't you lucky that your own holocaust denial is left rather
than right?
Jerry Kraus
>
> - Show quoted text -
The Russian government still defends Stalin's policies, John. They
say they helped the majority of the Russian people, and were necessary
to deal with that madman, Hitler. They don't deny his ruthlessness.
Jerry Kraus
>
> - Show quoted text -
Uh...John...holocaust deniers are generally considered to be Nazis.
That's RIGHT WING, John. Except to neocon loons like yourself, of
course. Damn few socialists or communists deny the holocaust, in my
experience. Everything for you is pretty much through the looking-
glass, isn't it John? Right Wing Loon!
john...@gmail.com
Jerry Kraus
>
> - Show quoted text -
There's nothing in the site you quote that's inconsistent with the
Russian government still defending Stalin's policies, while
acknowledging his ruthlessness. You have difficulties with subtle
distinctions, don't you John? Everyone has to be either pure good, or
pure evil, for you. Stalin was neither. He was ruthless, but
effective. Hitler was just a loon with political skills.
john...@gmail.com
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> There's nothing in the site you quote that's inconsistent with the
> Russian government still defending Stalin's policies, while
> acknowledging his ruthlessness. You have difficulties with subtle
> distinctions, don't you John? Everyone has to be either pure good, or
> pure evil, for you. Stalin was neither. He was ruthless, but
> effective. Hitler was just a loon with political skills.
If the present Russian government wants to treat Stalin as a national
hero that does not change facts. But I very much doubt if the Russian
government would defend the Ukranian famine. That would be just like
the Germans defending the extermination of the Jews.
Jerry Kraus
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > There's nothing in the site you quote that's inconsistent with the
> > Russian government still defending Stalin's policies, while
> > acknowledging his ruthlessness. You have difficulties with subtle
> > distinctions, don't you John? Everyone has to be either pure good, or
> > pure evil, for you. Stalin was neither. He was ruthless, but
> > effective. Hitler was just a loon with political skills.
>
> If the present Russian government wants to treat Stalin as a national
> hero that does not change facts. But I very much doubt if the Russian
> government would defend the Ukranian famine. That would be just like
>
> - Show quoted text -
Oh, they don't defend the Ukrainian famine. They made a mistake. It
wasn't intentional. The extermination of the Jews was.
Jerry Kraus
> On Tue, 20 May 2008 14:19:43 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Kraus
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> >There's nothing in the site you quote that's inconsistent with the
> >Russian government still defending Stalin's policies, while
> >acknowledging his ruthlessness. You have difficulties with subtle
> >distinctions, don't you John? Everyone has to be either pure good, or
> >pure evil, for you. Stalin was neither. He was ruthless, but
> >effective. Hitler was just a loon with political skills.
>
> more methodical than Hitler and emotions didn't enter into any of his
> policies or actions. But, the truth remains that the end result of
> both of their 'methods' was the same, a totalitarian state with all
> that that entails and they both were responsible for the death of
> millions.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hitler was responsible for the death of millions. Stalin was
responsible for saving millions. Stalin saved far more than he
killed. Hitler killed far more than he saved.
That is the difference.
john...@gmail.com
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > There's nothing in the site you quote that's inconsistent with the
> > > Russian government still defending Stalin's policies, while
> > > acknowledging his ruthlessness. You have difficulties with subtle
> > > distinctions, don't you John? Everyone has to be either pure good, or
> > > pure evil, for you. Stalin was neither. He was ruthless, but
> > > effective. Hitler was just a loon with political skills.
>
> > If the present Russian government wants to treat Stalin as a national
> > hero that does not change facts. But I very much doubt if the Russian
> > government would defend the Ukranian famine. That would be just like
> > the Germans defending the extermination of the Jews.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Oh, they don't defend the Ukrainian famine. They made a mistake. It
> wasn't intentional.
That is a your opinion. And you are wrong.
Jerry Kraus
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Actually, it's the official position of the Russian government. And,
I'm not aware that the Ukrainian govenment is formally disputing it.
No one denies the deaths. But, there's no evidence that they were
intentional.
john...@gmail.com
>
> > >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > >There's nothing in the site you quote that's inconsistent with the
> > >Russian government still defending Stalin's policies, while
> > >acknowledging his ruthlessness. You have difficulties with subtle
> > >distinctions, don't you John? Everyone has to be either pure good, or
> > >pure evil, for you. Stalin was neither. He was ruthless, but
> > >effective. Hitler was just a loon with political skills.
>
> > The major difference between Stalin & Hitler was that Stalin was far
> > more methodical than Hitler and emotions didn't enter into any of his
> > policies or actions. But, the truth remains that the end result of
> > both of their 'methods' was the same, a totalitarian state with all
> > that that entails and they both were responsible for the death of
> > millions.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Hitler was responsible for the death of millions. Stalin was
> responsible for saving millions. Stalin saved far more than he
> killed. Hitler killed far more than he saved.
>
> That is the difference.
Stalin deliberately killed his own people. Hitler killed what he
considered to be enemies of his people. Arguably that makes Stalin
more despicable.
Jerry Kraus
>
> > > >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > > >There's nothing in the site you quote that's inconsistent with the
> > > >Russian government still defending Stalin's policies, while
> > > >acknowledging his ruthlessness. You have difficulties with subtle
> > > >distinctions, don't you John? Everyone has to be either pure good, or
> > > >pure evil, for you. Stalin was neither. He was ruthless, but
> > > >effective. Hitler was just a loon with political skills.
>
> > > The major difference between Stalin & Hitler was that Stalin was far
> > > more methodical than Hitler and emotions didn't enter into any of his
> > > policies or actions. But, the truth remains that the end result of
> > > both of their 'methods' was the same, a totalitarian state with all
> > > that that entails and they both were responsible for the death of
> > > millions.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Hitler was responsible for the death of millions. Stalin was
> > responsible for saving millions. Stalin saved far more than he
> > killed. Hitler killed far more than he saved.
>
> > That is the difference.
>
> Stalin deliberately killed his own people. Hitler killed what he
> considered to be enemies of his people. Arguably that makes Stalin
>
> - Show quoted text -
All governments kill and or imprison citizens who they consider a
threat to their government. That's all Stalin did. The hatred of
right-wing loons like yourself for Stalin is simply the success he
had. He made Russia great, the population grew, the people were
productive and successful, and he made Capitalism look ridiculous.
Hitler was a Capitalist failure and lunatic, Stalin was a Communist
success. And the right-wing cannot forgive Stalin's success. So,
they struggle unsuccessfully to equate him with Hitler. Very simple,
really.
john...@gmail.com
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor
as of March 2008, the parliament of Ukraine and the governments of
several countries have recognized the Holodomor as an act of genocide.
[12]
Jerry Kraus
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
No more so than the Irish "Hunger" of the 1840's. Possibly, less so.
A much smaller proportion of the population was decimated. Ireland
has never really recovered from the Irish "Hunger". Stalin still
comes up looking better than the British.
john...@gmail.com
Do you admire Pol Pot too?
john...@gmail.com
To the Irish no doubt. We have to live with that.
http://www.infoukes.com/history/famine/gregorovich/
BLACK FAMINE IN UKRAINE 1932-33
A STRUGGLE FOR EXISTENCE
by
Andrew Gregorovich
UKRAINE, "the breadbasket of Europe" is a land famous for its fertile
black earth and its golden wheat. Yet, only forty years ago seven
million Ukrainians starved to death although no natural catastrophe
had visited the land. Forty years ago the people starved while the
Soviet Union exported butter and grain. While Moscow banqueted,
Ukraine hungered.
Stark, cold, statistics, the accounts of thousands of Ukrainian
survivors and German; English and American eyewitnesses, as well as
confessions of Moscow's agents and the admission of Stalin himself:
All these have slowly seeped out of the Iron Curtain and have been
piled into a tremendous mountain of facts. The whole story, pieced
together like a jig-saw puzzle, ends with the biggest puzzle of all:
Why did Moscow decide to starve to death seven million Ukrainians?
THE CLOAK OF DECEIT: "COLLECTIVIZATION"
THIS GREAT CRIME OF GENOCIDE AGAINST the Ukrainian people has not been
completely ignored by the history books of the world. Any history of
the Soviet Union will mention the triumph of "Collectivization" in
which the Kulaks, or well-off farmers, were "liquidated as a class."
Collectivized farming, which is today the most inefficient
agricultural system in existence, had to be instituted for Marxist
reasons. The Kulaks (Kurkulsin Ukrainian) constituted only 4 to 5% of
the peasantry -- yet they endangered the success of Communism!
The Communist Party on January 5, 1930, as part of the first Five Year
Plan, started the machinery of Collectivization rolling. Collective
is, incidentally Kolkhoz in Russian and Kolhosp in Ukrainian. The
Russian peasantry demonstrated little opposition to Moscow because of
their past tradition of communal farming. The Russian mir, or village
commune, where the land is owned by the village and not by the
individual, had for centuries prepared the Russians psychologically
for Collectivization. On July 30, 1930 the first RSFSR decree
abolishing the mir was passed to make way for the Collectives.
The Ukrainians, on the other hand, had an independent, individualistic
farming tradition of private ownershp of land. The Russian communal
spirit was comething completely foreign to the farmers of Ukraine and
so they opposed Moscow bitterly. While the collectivization in the
Russian Republic (RSFSR) went on schedule, the stubborn resistance of
the Ukrainians slowed it down to such a standstill that Moscow even
had to retreat temporarily. This was noted by Stalin in his famous
"Dizzy with Success" letter. One way the Ukrainian farmer showed his
opposition to collectivization was by slaughtering his livestock
before joining. Later a death penalty was passed for such an action.
The folowing table shows the tremendous drop in livestock:
Livestock in Ukraine
Horses Cattle Sheep Hogs
1928 5,300,000 8,600,000 8,100,000 7,000,000
1935 2,600,000 4,400,000 2,000,000 2,000,000
Source: Ukrainian Encyclopedia, page 1064
WHY DID THE FAMINE TAKE PLACE?
OPPOSlTlON TO COLLECTIVIZATION is only half the story why Moscow
created the famine in Ukraine. The Ukrainian opposition was not only
ideological, that is against Communism, but also political. Russian
nationalism reared its ugly head at this time. The Kremlin used the
famine as a political weapon to destroy Ukrainian aspirations for
independence. At the same time as the famine (1932-34) a wave of
persecutions of thousands of Ukrainian intellectuals, writers and
leaders took place. Plots for liberating Ukraine were discovered not
only in the smallest villages but even in the top ranks of the
Ukrainian Communist Party itself. Purges took hundreds of Ukrainians.
Suicide was the escape of many. In 1933 the famous writer Mykola
Khvylovy and the veteran Ukrainian Communist, Mykola Skrypnyk, both
chose suidde.
"This famine," says the American authority William H. Chamberlin, "may
fairly be called political because it was not the result of any
overwhelming natural catastrophe or of ... a complete exhaustion of
the country's resources... "
THE STRANGEST WAR IN HISTORY
THE DEATH AND DESOLATION caused by the famine is likened to war by
many of the eyewitnesses. And in fact, the unequal struggle between
the peasants of Ukraine and the agent of the Russian Kremlin certainly
may be accurately called a "war". This Ukrainian-Russian "war" between
peasants armed with pitchforks and the Red Army and Secret Police, was
carried out mercilessly with no pity for the aged or young, nor for
women and children. According to Bertram D. Wolfe: "Villages were
surrounded and laid waste, set to the torch, attacked by tanks and
artillery and bombs from the air. A Secret Police Colonel, almost
sobbing, told the writer Isaac Deutscher:
"I am an old Bolshevik. I worked in the underground against the
Tsar and then I fought in the civil war. Did I do all that in order
that I should now surround villages with machine-guns and order my men
to fire indiscriminately into crowds of peasants? Oh no, no!"
One Moscow agent, mighty Hatayevich, in reprimanding Comrade Victor
Kravchenko, one of 100,000 men "selected by the Central Committee of
the Party" to help in Collectivization said:
"... I'm not sure that you understand what has been happening. A
ruthless struggle is going on between the peasantry and our regime.
It's a struggle to the death. This year (1933) was a test of our
strength and their endurance. It took a famine to show them who is
master here. It has cost millions of lives, but the collective farm
system is here to stay, We've won the war."
Hatayevich, Secretary of the Regional Committee of the Dnipropetrovsk
Communist Party and one of the foremost Communist in the Ukrainian SSR
reveals here that the famine was intentional, that it took millions of
lives, and that he considered it a "war" aganst the Ukrainian farmers.
One woman in Poltava said, "No war ever took from us so many people."
This was true, since Ukraine's losses in 1932-33 were greater than
that of any nation that fought in the First World War. It should be
emphasized that the main weapon in this struggle was not tanks,
machine guns or bullets -- but hunger. Famine, a man-made
"Collectivized" famine, was the main cause of the loss of life in this
"war," one of the strangest in history.
STALIN'S CONFESSION TO CHURCHILL
WHEN SIR WINSTON CHURCHILL visited Stalin at the Kremlin in August,
1942 he asked: " ... Have the stresses of the war been as bad to you
personally as carrying through the policy of the Collective Farms?"
"Oh, no" he (Stalin) said, "the Collective Farm policy was a terrible
srtuggle ... Ten millions," he said, holding up his hands. "It was
fearful. Four years it lasted. It was absolutely necessary ..."
Stalin admits that a complete year of World War II to him was less of
a struggle than Collectivization! How gigantic the opposition of the
Ukrainian peasants must have been. Stalin went on to tell the British
Prime Minister that some peasants "agreed to come in with us" and were
given land to cultivate in Tomsk or lrkutsk (both in Siberia). "But,"
Stalin added, "the great bulk (of the 10 million) were very unpopular
and were wiped out by their labourers (?)."
When Nikita Khrushchev "purged" Stalin in his 1956 secret speech, he
didn't say a word about this Famine, the most immense of Stalin's
crimes. Instead, Khrushchev expressed concern over the "thousands" of
innocent Communists that had suffered from Stalin's diabolical
suspicion. It was on this occasion that Khrushchev said that Stalin
considered deporting the population of Ukraine, however as Khrushchev
says: "The Ukrainians avoided meeting this fate only because there
were too many of them and there was no place to which to deport them.
Otherwise, he would have deported them also." In his book Khrushchev
Remembers (Boston, Little, Brown, 1970) the Soviet premier devotes a
chapter to the famine in Ukraine, 1945.
HOW MANY DIED?
"CONSERVATIVE ESTIMATES place the number of deaths in Ukraine due to
this enforced famine, at about 4,800,000. Many recognized scholars,
however have estimated the number between 5 million to 8 million."
This statement from a United States Senate Document (No. 122 of 1958)
can be backed up with actual statistics squeezed out of the Soviet
press. The Russian government, however, took special measures to keep
secret the death toll. Of course, it has never admitted any statistics
or even the existence of the famine. But, indirect references were
accidentally made and it is possible to estimate that during the
famine from 10% to 25% of Ukraine's population (32,680,700 in January
1932) starved to death.
Vasyl Hryshko, in his factual study says that in 1935 about 25,000
people died daily in the villages of Ukraine, or more than 1,000 per
hour or 17 every minute. It was in early 1933 that the greatest loss
of life took place. In the first half of the year foreign travel in
Ukraine was banned. No newspaper correspondents were allowed to visit
the besieged country until the late summer and fall when signs of the
famine had been cleared up. The American journalist William Henry
Chamberlin visited Ukraine immediately after the ban on travel was
lifted. He says every village he visited had lost at least ten percent
of its residents.
Hryshko sums up the statistics of 1932 and 1939 in this way. When we
compare the 32,680,700 persons living in Ukraine in 1932 with the 1939
figure of 30,960,200 we see that, taking into account the normal 2.36
per cent annual increase, in seven years Ukraine had lost 7,465,000
persons. Of this number, Hryshko says, some 4,821,600 persons or
roughly 18.8 percent of the Ukrainian population, died in the years
1932-1933.
The impact of the famine is shown in many ways. Just before World War
II a survey of the number of students was made. Since children start
school in the USSR at seven years of age therefore, seven years after
1932 there should be an indication of the famine by a drop in
enrollment. Look at these figures:
Russian SFSR Ukraine Byelorussia
1914-15 4,965,318 1,492,878 235,065
1928-29 5,997,980 1,585,814 369,684
1938-39 7,663,669 985,598 358,507
Source: Cultural Construction of the USSR, Moscow: Government Planning
Pub., 1940, pages 40-50.
The Russian Republic (where no famine took place), shows a steady
increase as did all seven other Soviet Republics, with the exception
of Armenia. Why did Ukraine have an absolute loss of 600,216 students
and Byelorussia (also a famine area) 11,174? The tragic story of these
missing school children is written in the pages of the man-made
famine. Let us not forget that Stalin himself said "ten millions" some
of whom suffered death not from famine but as slave laborers in
Siberian mines and timber camps.
EYE WITNESSES SPEAK
HUNDREDS OF UKRAINIAN eyewitnesses of the famine have told their
tragic and unbelievable experiences in the book The Black Deeds of the
Kremlin, edited by S. 0. Pidhainy. The second volume of this work is
devoted exclusively to "The Great Famine in Ukraine." It should be
added that some of the people were able to travel to Moscow and other
areas because they were technicians, etc. They testify that while they
left Famine at the border of Ukraine or the Kuban (North Caucasus)
area, which is also Ukrainian populated, they found no evidence of
hunger in Russia or other Soviet republics, except Byelorussia. It is
not possible to give even a hint of the horror and pathos in Ukraine
at the time.
Writer Arthur Kaestler:
Arthur Koestler, the famous writer who visited Ukraine in late summer
of 1932 and fall 1933 and who spent about three months in the
Ukrainian city of Kharkiv writes in The God That Failed:
"I saw the ravages of the famine of 1932-1933 in the Ukraine:
hordes of families in rags begging at the railway stations, the women
lifting up to the compartment window their starving brats, which, with
drumstick limbs, big cadaverous heads and puffed bellies, looked like
embryos out of alcohol bottles ..."
American Traveller Carveth Wells:
Carveth Wells, a world traveller, traveled through Ukraine in July
1932 and describes the early stages of the famine in his fascinating
book Kapoot.
"The extraordinary thing was that the farther we penetrated into
the Ukraine, which used to be the 'Granary of Russia', the less food
there was and the more starvation to be seen on every side."
"None of us knew what tragedies had been enacted here ...
"We ourselves happened to be passing through the Ukraine and the
Caucasus in the very midst of the famine in July, 1932. From the train
windows children could be seen eating grass. The sight of small
children with stomachs enormously distended is not at all uncommon in
Africa or other tropical countries, but this was the first time I had
ever seen white children in such a state."
Soviet Official Victor Kravchenko:
Victor Kravchenko was a Soviet official who escaped from the USSR
Embassy in the United States in 1944. He described his life in the
book I Chose Freedom. In 1933 he was one of the Communist agents
assigned to safeguard the new harvest, the "Harvest in Hell" as he
calls it:
"Although not a word about the tragedy appeared in the newspapers,
the famine that raged ... was a matter of common knowledge.
"What I saw that morning ... was inexpressibly horrible. On a
battlefield men die quickly, they fight back ... Here I saw people
dying in solitude by slow degrees, dying hideously, without the excuse
of sacrifice for a cause. They had been trapped and left to starve,
each in his own home, by a political decision made in a far-off
capital around conference and banquet tables. There was not even the
consolation of inevitability to relieve the horror.
"The most terrifying sights were the little children with skeleton
limbs dangling from balloon-like abdomens. Starvation had wiped every
trace of youth from their faces, turning them into tortured gargoyles;
only in their eyes still lingered the reminder of childhood.
Everywhere we found men and women lying prone (weak from hunger),
their faces and bellies bloated, their eyes utterly expressionless."
Kravchenko was shocked to discover a butter plant was wrapping its
products in paper titled in English USSR Butter Export.
"Anger lashed my mind as I drove back to the village. Butter being
sent abroad in the midst of the famine! In London, Berlin, Paris I
could see ... people eating butter stamped with a Soviet trade mark.
Driving through the fields, I did not hear the lovely Ukrainian songs
so dear to my heart. These people had forgotten how to sing. I could
only hear the groans of the dying, and the lip-smacking of fat
foreigners enjoying our butter ..."
At the same time Communist Party members and Soviet officials, the
privileged classes, were specially supplied with food. Some of these,
however, had a conscience and Comrade Somanov, Chief of the Political
Department said:
"Victor ... I'm of peasant origin myself and the sufferings of my
people hurt me deeply. Tears, blood, death, exile. And why? The land
is fertile, the people are hard-working. Why must we let them starve
and die and perish? The more I think of it the more confused I get."
The famine was not caused by a lack of food in Ukraine. This may seem
a paradox but the cause of the famine was completely the Kremlin's
decision. It locked up Ukraine's food and guarded it from the people.
The Russian grain collectors did not take only the wheat from the
peasants but stripped them of all food. In one village near Odessa
"they collected all the grain, potatoes, beets to the last kilogram"
and "in other places they even took half-baked loaves of bread from
the stove." These are not mentioned by Kravchenko. He does reveal
however, that these millions need not have died except at the whim of
Stalin in Moscow. He says:
"When the first of the new grain was being delivered to the
granary near the railroad station, I made a discovery which left me
tremulous with horror. Stacked in the brick structure were thousands
of poods of the previous year's (1932) grain collections These were
the state reserves for the district ordered by the government, their
very existence hidden from the starving population by officialdom
Hundreds of men, women and children had died of undernourishment in
these villages, though grain was hoarded almost outside their doors!
"The peasants who were with me when we found the 'State reserves'
stared with unbelieving eyes and cursed in anger. Subsequently I came
to know that in many other parts of the country the government hoarded
huge reserves while peasants in those very regions died of hunger. Why
this was done only Stalin's Politburo could tell -- and it didn't."
W.E.D. ALLEN
"Since that date (1926) catastrophes have befallen the rural folk
of the Ukraine about 3,000,000 are reckoned to have perished during
the famine of the early thirties, and another 2,000,000 certainly have
migrated (to Siberia?) as a result of conditions which they have found
intolerable."
The Ukraine: A History, by W.E.D. Allen, Cambridge University Press,
1941, page 375.
IVAR SPECTOR
"Hundreds of thousands of the recalcitrants were transported to
Siberia to work in the forest or mines. ... Others starved during the
famine which swept Ukraine in the early 1930's particularly in 1932."
An Introduction to Russian History and Culture, by Ivar Spector, D.
Van Nostrand, New York, 1950.
GEORGE VERNADSKY
"... Largely as a result of the forcible collectivization of
agriculture, a famine developed in Ukraine. Starvation and all it
accompanying diseases stalked unchecked through the richest
agricultural region in the Soviet Union, and within the space of a few
months hundreds of thousands if not millions of people died in
unimaginable misery."
A History of Russia, by George Vernadsky, Philadelphia, Blakiston,
1944, page 337.
"The famine of 1930-31 followed close on the heels of the chaos,
which existed everywhere in agriculture, and in Ukraine in particular
the suffering and starvation reached a scale which almost passes human
comprehension."
A History of Russia, by George Vernadsky, New Haven, Yale University
Press, 1954, page 360.
RICHARD CHARQUES
"But among the ghastly fruits of the campaign for collectivization
was the 'man-made famine' of 1931-32 in the Ukraine and the northern
Caucasus, where it had been resisted most fiercely and where the
fields had lain almost totally neglected. There were millions of
deaths from starvation in these regions."
A Short History of Russia, by Richard Charques, London, 1959, page
245.
EDWARD CRANKSHAW
"At the same time Stalin had just forced through the
collectivization of agriculture ... at a fearful price ... First there
were the millions of ruined lives, the lives of the rich and middle
peasants, the so-called kulaks, killed in the struggle, or exiled to
Siberia; then the three million dead in the great famine which swept
Ukraine ..."
Russia by Daylight, by Edward Crankshaw, London, Michael Joseph, 1951,
page 100
"I'm still young and want so much to live a while"
-- Zina
This letter was written to K. Riabokin, a University Professor at
Kharkiv, by his niece Zina:
"Please, Uncle Do Take Me to Kharkiv."
"We have neither bread nor anything else to eat. Dad is completely
exhausted from hunger and is lying on the bench, unable to get on his
feet. Mother is blind from the hunger and cannot see in the least. So
I have to guide her when she has to go outside. Please Uncle, do take
me to Kharkiv, because I, too, will die from hunger. Please do take
me, please. I'm still young and I want so much to live a while. Here I
will surely die, for every one else is dying ..."
----
The Uncle received the letter at the same time that he was told of
her death. He says, "I did not know what to say or what to do. My head
just pounded with my neice's pathetic plea: `I'm still young and want
so much to live ... Please do take me, please ...'"
BERTRAM D. WOLFE
"The peasantry fought for its life with fowling pieces and
pitchforks. Uprisings embraced whole regions. Villages were surrounded
and laid waste ... Districts were stripped of their stocks of grain
and seed, then cordoned off to die of famine and plague."
Khrushchev and Stalin's Ghost, by Bertram D. Wolfe, Praeger, New York,
1957, page 165
"In 1932 the State decreed the death penalty for stealing a bit of
coal or grain from a freight train. Then the death penalty was
provided for the collectivized farmer who might steal from the fields
some of the product of his "collective labor;" then for the willful
slaughter of his own cattle; then for letting "cattle die by neglect."
"In March 1933, thirty-five officials of the Commissariat of
Agriculture were executed after being 'tried' ... for having
'willfully permitted noxious weeds to grow in the fields.'"
Khrushchev and Stalin's Ghost, by Bertram D. Wolfe, Praeger, New York,
1957, pages 169-71
DR. EWALD AMMENDE
"... Official Soviet reports referred to the 1932 harvest as of
medium quality: poor results or failure were never mentioned. (page
29) 1933 was a particularly critical year for the food supply of the
Soviet Union. Nevertheless, 1.8 million tons of grain and other
foodstuffs were exported ... In the first eight months of 1934, during
which period the acute lack of foodstuffs continued, the export was
even more considerable; 591,835 tons of grain, worth 13.6 million
roubles were exported ... via the Black Sea ports."
Human Life in Russia, by Dr. Ewald Ammende, London, G. Allen & Unwin,
1936, page 46
WALTER DURANTY
"In the first fortnight of January (1933) ... Stalin made a speech
'What is wrong,' Stalin asked in effect, 'on the agrarian front? We
are wrong, my comrades -- we, not the peasants nor the weather, nor
class enemies, but we Communists, who have the greatest power and
authority the world ever saw, yet have made a series of blunders ...
We miscalculated the new tactics of hostile forces of boring from
within, instead of engaging in open warfare.'"
"In April, 1933, I travelled through Ukraine to Odessa, and ... a
Red Army brigade commander (General) told me: 'We had a communal farm
in Ukraine attached to my regiment ... Everything went well until a
year ago (1932). Then the whole set-up changed. We began to get
letters asking for food. Can you imagine that, that they asked food
from us? We sent what we could, but I didn't know what had happened
until I went to the farm only a month ago (March 1933). My God, you
wouldn't beleive it. The people were almost starving. Their animals
were dead. I'll tell you more, there wasn't a cat or dog in the whole
village, and that is no good sign ... Instead of two hundred and fifty
families there were only seventy-three, and all of them were half-
starved. I asked them what happened. They said 'Our seed grain was
taken away last spring.' They said to me, 'Comrade Commander, we are
soldiers and most of us are Communists. When the order came that our
farm must deliver five hundred tons of grain, we held a meeting. Five
hundred tons of grain! We needed four hundred tons to sow our fields,
and we only had six hundred tons. But we gave the grain as ordered."
What was the result? I asked the brigade commander.
"Barren fields," he told me. "Do you know that they ate their
horses and oxen, such as was left of them? They were starving, do you
know that? Their tractors were rusty and useless; and remember, these
folks weren't kulaks, weren't class enemies. They were our own people,
our soldiers. I was horrified ..."
USSR: The Story of Soviet Russia, by Walter Duranty, New York, 1944,
pages 194-5
MAURICE HINDUS
"The more well to-do peasants continued to resist the movement,
and to dispose of their opposition, the Soviets proceeded to liquidate
them."
The Great Offensive, by Maurice Hindus, New York, 1933, page 154
"Worst of all the excessive collection of grain. This was carried
out with especial vigor."
(Hindus, page 151)
"Thousands (of people) came to Moscow, because they knew that in
Moscow there was an abundance of food. The Ukraine with its lovely
lands and its lovely skies and its lovely white villages was siezed
with panic and gloom. The mortality of livestock from starvation
during this time was enormous."
(Hindus, page 153)
"I never had seen such an abundance of weeds in the fields as
there were in the summer of 1932. Sugar beet in the Kiev area
(Ukraine) were literally submerged in weeds."
(Hindus, page 154)
Hindus quotes the Commissar of Agriculture, Yakovlev, who spoke in
February 1933 about the Peremozhetz collective farm in Odessa region
of Ukraine. "Here," said Yakovlev, "was as choice a farm as there was
in that part of the country -- rich soil, superb climate -- Yet in
1932 it failed to fulfill the grain obligation to the government even
though the amount was reduced to one-fourth of what it had been the
year before, and many a family had in hand only scanty supplies of
bread. Of its 153 horses, only 53 were left. The other 100 died of
starvation."
RONALD HINGLEY
"The same year (1932) also saw the outbreak of the second great
Soviet famine, in the Ukraine and along the Volga. It claimed some
five million further peasant victims -- deliberately sacrificed by
Stalin, who continued to dump Soviet grain on world markets while
those who had grown it were starving en masse. The new dictator was
very largely successful in concealing this disaster from world
opinion."
A Condse History of Russia, by Ronald Hingley, New York, Viking Press,
1972, pages 172-73.
S.V. UTECHIN
"The next famine, that of 1932-3 was created artificially by the
authorities as a means of breaking the resistance of the peasants to
the collectivization of agriculture; ... the grain was removed from
the countryside by armed detachments chiefly composed of internal
security troops and Komsomol members. (page 175) Millions of peasants
died of starvation or were deported and sent to forced labour
camps." (page 120).
A Concise Encyclopedia of Russia, by S.V. Utechin, New York, Dutton,
1964.
CLARENCE A. MANNING
"It is difficult to estimate accurately the number who perished in
the famine, but it was approximately 4,800,000. This is certainly an
underestimate, although certain other calcu- lations will place the
number between five and six million."
Ukraine Under the Soviets, by Clarence A. Manning, New York, Bookman
Associates, 1953, page 101.
JOHN F. STEWART
"While no official statistics about this tragedy have been
published, there is a document - The Small Soviet Encyclopedia of
1940, in which it is stated that Ukraine had in 1927 a population of
32 millions, and in 1939, only twelve years later, a population of 28
million. Where had the 4 millions gone to, apart from what should have
been the natural increase of at least another 4 million?"
Tortured but Unconquerable Ukraine, by John F. Stewart. Edinburgh,
Scottish League for European Freedom, 1953. page 8.
Jerry Kraus
>
> - Show quoted text -
Oh, not at all. It was the U.S. government that admired Pol Pot, and
opposed the Communist Vietnamese ousting of him from power, in
conjunction with the Soviets. The Soviets recognized that Pol Pot was
a genocidal lunatic -- like Hitler -- who needed to be removed from
power. I recall the Republicans on the U.S. Senate floor laughing
hysterically at some Democrats suggesting that Pol Pot should be
removed. Whatever for? He was killing gooks, after all. All the
plastic bags used to strangle people in Cambodia -- cheaper than
bullets, you know -- where purchased from U.S. companies. Capitalism
in action. Good money to be made in killing, of course. I even
wrote a poem about it, a few years ago.
Just Business
I’ve never seen a sky in flames
Like orange starfruit after winter rains
A quiet morning is gently flowing
Through eastern mists with swiftly growing
Platain groves entrenched within our harbour’s cove
And all around we see with love
A tenderly entrancing sea of doves
All carefully enacting their peculiar
Rituals and ministrations here, in Khmer.
But though the sky around is not in flames
We hear the sound of guns and planes
And war’s around us in our land
A conflict we can’t understand
Though it all seems to be planned
By men who trade in distant lands
Enslaving those beneath their hand
Intransigence, you understand
Just any thing that comes to hand
They use them, they’re a slick device
Entrapping all within a vice
Of fear, and pain and war and sin
Sometimes they’re called Republicains.
All wars are economic they say
About economics, anyway
They have to find a way to pay
Our salaries, come election day
A special breed, the CIA
Can always help to pave the way
With guns and butter, carefully placed
There surely can be no disgrace
In helping purify the race
There is no need to stem the tide
Of oriental genocide.
Let me just tell you one word – Plastics!
There’s nothing they can’t fix.
They can plug a hole, fix a leak
Just the kind of thing we seek
In our little experiment
Pol Pot’s going to attempt
To forge a perfect polity
A new kind of society!
Just one problem
Plastics’ll solve em
They’re all those people
Who don’t seem very agreeable
But plastic’s got airtight qualities
Especially covering the face and eyes
We’re going ahead with our experiment
All thanks to the people at Dupont!
But somehow, there are those who fail to see
In our glorious society
Those noble, great ideals
That all left standing feel
Those pesky Viet Cong
Let’s face it, they’re wrong!
With both China and the U.S. to back us
They can’t possibly attack us
Why, that would be completely insane
And what would they have to gain
Simply to stem our people’s pain
This simply makes no sense at all
Their absolute, unmitigated gall
To block our sacred, noble course
Why, they’re interfering with commerce!
There we go, it’s okay now,
Big brother China’s joined the show
One billion strong, it’s over now
The People’s Army’ll show them how
They’d better leave us on our own
To wipe out everyone at home
The U.S. doesn’t give a damn
The Soviets? Well, we hadn’t planned
On them showing a moral side
But what’s really worrying us besides
The People’s Army, in ten days,
Has one hundred thousand casualties
Now genocide has taught us math
If China keeps along this path
They’ll pretty soon have nothing left!
Well, Pol Pot lost, as we all know
The Khmer Rouge took longer to go
China backed them all the way
And they gave Pol a place to stay
The U.S. didn’t really care
After all, they’d got their share
And who ever heard of war crimes courts
Taking to trial their biggest supports?
Oh, and by the way
Should you make a film about all this play
You might wind up dead on the streets of L.A.!
© Copyright Jerome Raymond Kraus 2005
john...@gmail.com
>
> read more »
What about Mao?
Jerry Kraus
Well, the Chinese are kind of a special case, internationally. China
has no tradition of monotheism, which is really the basis for our
Western conception of individual rights. Whatever their political
system, they give it absolute power over individuals. Their view is
that nothing is worse than anarchy, which has, historically, led to
the complete decimation of their population. But, they know they
screwed up in Cambodia. No mainland chinese histories of the Vietnam
War even mention Cambodia, as far as I'm aware. They don't want to
admit what a mess they made of things there.
john...@gmail.com
>
> > No more so than the Irish "Hunger" of the 1840's. Possibly, less so.
> > A much smaller proportion of the population was decimated. Ireland
> > has never really recovered from the Irish "Hunger". Stalin still
> > comes up looking better than the British.
>
> To the Irish no doubt. We have to live with that.
>
doesn't help your case.
Jerry Kraus
Well, actually I think it does a bit. You see the whole point here is
that we are dealing with degrees of evil. All governments do bad
things. But, which do more good than evil, and which do more evil
than good? Hitler's actions post-1938 were almost exclusively evil,
something that Germans will quite readily acknowledge. Stalin's
actions are much more complex and difficult to classify. Something
the Russians are well aware of, but which you refuse to acknowledge.
john...@gmail.com
I have not been talking about good and evil. I am not such a
simpleton. Stalin was a prize cunt, and anyone who extols him as you
do is merely an idiot. His henchmen were contemptible, more so than
the top Nazis. Doing what they did out of fear and misplaced idealism
showed real moral corruption, not just cruelty. I imagine you as one
of the adoring dupes to be rounded up at 2 in the morning and shot in
the back of the neck.