DeLeon
Hunter Watson
Christian, is the "with all that" conclusion in this biographical
sketch from marxists.org fair to DeLeon?
"De Leon, Daniel
US academic who joined the Socialist Labor Party (SLP, originally the
American Socialist League) and transformed it from a small propaganda
group, based in the European immigrants, to a lively, if doctrinaire
party, active in the powerful US workers movement. De Leon participated
in the founding of the IWW in the USA in 1905. The SLP described itself
with the metaphor of a 'beacon', the light from which workers would see
when the moment for revolution arrived. De Leon described the aim of
the ASL to be elected as a 'shield' to neutralise the power of the
state, with the One Big Union (OBU) as the 'sword' to take and hold the
means of production and administer the economy of a future socialist
society. Cannon said of De Leon: 'with all his great merits and
capacities; with his exemplary selflessness, his complete and
unconditional dedication to the workers cause; with the enemies he made
he is entitled to our love and admiration - with all that, De Leon was
a sectarian in his tactics, and his conception of political action was
rigidly formalistic, rendered sterile by legalistic fetishism'. The US
SLP was the dominant influence on its Sydney and British sister parties
of the same name."
dwal...@igc.org
David Walters
Hunter Watson
Is that because it has been determined by marxists.org that Cannon was
in error--and that DeLeon was not in fact a tactical sectarian, a rigid
formalist or a legalistic fetishist?
Or does it represent an admission that these epithets, like most others
cultivated by various left cults in the 20th Century, were in and of
themselves inherently meaningless?
Or, perhaps, does it signal an unprecedented spirit of ecumenism among
Marxists, i.e., the advent of the first genuine sign of tolerance in
comradely ranks in over a century?
Hunter Watson
So, Christian, how would you re-write this all too brief biographical
sketch of Mr. DeLeon?
dwal...@igc.org
what is supposed to be an objective *fact* based definition.
Hunter Watson
dwal...@igc.org wrote:
> It is because polemics, regardless of their accuracy, have no place in
> what is supposed to be an objective *fact* based definition.
It isn't a mere "definition"; it's a biographical sketch. Tolerant
people in the outside world look askance at sectarian efforts to
"define" human beings. It undermines both tolerance and diversity,
qualities we liberals and democrats admire.
I take it you vouch for Cannon's accuracy but criticise him for being a
polemicist. After all you put these polemics up on your site. Therefore
you should think them at least accurate.
Tell us, David, what is the political history of those running
marxists.org? What's the dominant current?
FRAN
Hunter Watson wrote:
> dwal...@igc.org wrote:
> > It is because polemics, regardless of their accuracy, have no place in
> > what is supposed to be an objective *fact* based definition.
>
> It isn't a mere "definition"; it's a biographical sketch. Tolerant
> people in the outside world look askance at sectarian efforts to
> "define" human beings. It undermines both tolerance and diversity,
> qualities we liberals and democrats admire.
>
> I take it you vouch for Cannon's accuracy but criticise him for being a
> polemicist. After all you put these polemics up on your site. Therefore
> you should think them at least accurate.
>
I see it as more of a summary. In a summary it's apt to advance a range
of views on the man so people can work things out for themselves.
> Tell us, David, what is the political history of those running
> marxists.org? What's the dominant current?
Fran
Bert Byfield
> of views on the man so people can work things out for themselves.
People working things out for themselves has nothing to do with socialism,
of course.
Hunter Watson
FRAN wrote:
> Hunter Watson wrote:
> > dwal...@igc.org wrote:
> > > It is because polemics, regardless of their accuracy, have no place in
> > > what is supposed to be an objective *fact* based definition.
> >
> > It isn't a mere "definition"; it's a biographical sketch. Tolerant
> > people in the outside world look askance at sectarian efforts to
> > "define" human beings. It undermines both tolerance and diversity,
> > qualities we liberals and democrats admire.
> >
> > I take it you vouch for Cannon's accuracy but criticise him for being a
> > polemicist. After all you put these polemics up on your site. Therefore
> > you should think them at least accurate.
> >
>
> I see it as more of a summary. In a summary it's apt to advance a range
> of views on the man so people can work things out for themselves.
So the insertion of Cannon's Trotskyist anti-De Leon polemics into a
biograpical sketch of De Leon is designed as an aid to "people working
things out for themselves?" Excuse me but that's not an example of
scholarly objectivity.
>
>
>
> > Tell us, David, what is the political history of those running
> > marxists.org? What's the dominant current?
>
>
> Fran
James P. Cannon was an early supporter of Trotsky, i.e., he was a
Trotskyist*, and so is David Walters, as is testified to by his web
comments and by marxists.org's Virginia Tech-connected web site bios
which include David's.
You know, Fran, that your movement, the overall Marxist/Leninist
movement, has been characterized by its infighting for over a century.
You've mentioned such problems even within your own group. The issue
I'm raising has to do with the scholarly integrity of marxists.org. How
do Trotskyist polemics succeed in getting into its biographical
material if not for Trotskyist influence in its management? And if that
is happening, what questions are raised about its editorial decisions
generally, most specifically those of inclusion and exclusion?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
*So there's no confusion among casual readers, here's an example of
Cannon at work in the 20s:
"10. The Opposition in the Communist Party of the Soviet Union led by
L. D. Trotsky has been fighting for the unity of the Comintern and all
its sections on the basis of the victory of Leninism. The correctness
of the position taken by the Russian Opposition over a period of five
years of struggle has been fully confirmed by events."
FRAN
Hunter Watson wrote:
> FRAN wrote:
> > Hunter Watson wrote:
> > > dwal...@igc.org wrote:
> > > > It is because polemics, regardless of their accuracy, have no place in
> > > > what is supposed to be an objective *fact* based definition.
> > >
> > > It isn't a mere "definition"; it's a biographical sketch. Tolerant
> > > people in the outside world look askance at sectarian efforts to
> > > "define" human beings. It undermines both tolerance and diversity,
> > > qualities we liberals and democrats admire.
> > >
> > > I take it you vouch for Cannon's accuracy but criticise him for being a
> > > polemicist. After all you put these polemics up on your site. Therefore
> > > you should think them at least accurate.
> > >
> >
> > I see it as more of a summary. In a summary it's apt to advance a range
> > of views on the man so people can work things out for themselves.
>
> So the insertion of Cannon's Trotskyist anti-De Leon polemics into a
> biograpical sketch of De Leon is designed as an aid to "people working
> things out for themselves?" Excuse me but that's not an example of
> scholarly objectivity.
>
When assessing a political figure, the opinions of those who may well
have standing with those inclined to respect him or her are valuable,
surely.
> >
> >
> >
> > > Tell us, David, what is the political history of those running
> > > marxists.org? What's the dominant current?
> >
> >
> > Fran
>
> James P. Cannon was an early supporter of Trotsky,
He was a Trotskyist for most of his political life. He was a founder of
the FI and the SWP (US). The organisation of which I was a member
recognised Cannon as Trotsky's immediate political successor. His books
remain in the canon. (sorry)
> i.e., he was a
> Trotskyist*, and so is David Walters, as is testified to by his web
> comments and by marxists.org's Virginia Tech-connected web site bios
> which include David's.
>
> You know, Fran, that your movement, the overall Marxist/Leninist
> movement, has been characterized by its infighting for over a century.
We communists take our ideas seriously. Of course, it's not only the
serious who get involved in polemics.
> You've mentioned such problems even within your own group. The issue
> I'm raising has to do with the scholarly integrity of marxists.org. How
> do Trotskyist polemics succeed in getting into its biographical
> material if not for Trotskyist influence in its management? And if that
> is happening, what questions are raised about its editorial decisions
> generally, most specifically those of inclusion and exclusion?
>
I see no problem as longs as it is clearly marked off as Cannon's
opinion.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *So there's no confusion among casual readers, here's an example of
> Cannon at work in the 20s:
>
> "10. The Opposition in the Communist Party of the Soviet Union led by
> L. D. Trotsky has been fighting for the unity of the Comintern and all
> its sections on the basis of the victory of Leninism. The correctness
> of the position taken by the Russian Opposition over a period of five
> years of struggle has been fully confirmed by events."
Uh huh
FRan
Hunter Watson
> It is because polemics, regardless of their accuracy, have no place in
> what is supposed to be an objective *fact* based definition.
I am wondering what the scholarly standards at marxists.org actually
consist of. Lenin's colleague and appointee "Iron Felix" Dzerzhinsky
wrote prolifically about Communist policy in his capacity as a Soviet
administrator and government official. He was a colleage of Lenin
before WWI and one of the most effective leaders of the Petrograd
Revolutionary Military Committee (PRMC). There he became "the great
specialist on questions of security" (Werth). Lenin recommended him as
a "solid proletarian Jacobin" (Id.) and accordingly saw to it that it
was he who founded the Cheka, the single most important Bolshevik
organ, more important by far even than the Red Army up to the brink of
WWII. Lenin praised him very highly: "He knows what he's doing."
Surely marxists.org doesn not disagree with Lenin.
Dzerzhinsky was a stirring writer and orator as is shown without doubt
in this excerpt from his speech of 7 (20) December before the SNK:
"To address this problem, the cruelest and most dangerous of all the
problems we face (revolution 'from within'), we must make use of
determined comrades--solid, hard men without pity--who are ready to
sacrifice everything for the sake of the revolution. Do not imagine,
comrades, that I am simply looking for a revolutionary form of Justice.
We have no concern about justsice at this hour! We are at war, on the
front where the enemy is advancing, and the fight is to the death. What
I am proposing, what I am demanding, is the creation of a mechanism
that in a truely revolutionary and suitable Bolshevik fashion, will
filter out the counterrevolutionaries once and for all!"
Now, who can say that Felix Dzerzhinsky's work does not shed light on
"truely revolutionary and suitable Bolshevik" governance? You have ten
pages of references to him in the work of others on your web site but
you seem not to collect his critically important work so we we may
benefit by reading the man himself. After all you include some of the
most trivial memoranda by Lenin and Trotsky. Why not Dzerzhinski? He
and his institution are acknowledged to have saved the regime and
propelled it into the very last decade of the 20th Century.
Hunter Watson
JUSTICE ON MARXISTS.ORG FOR IRON FELIX DZERZHINSKY!
Hunter Watson
After all, the Marxist Internet Archive naively proclaims that as to
Leon Trotsky:
"The Trotsky Internet Archive (TIA) hopes to be central clearing house
for Trotsky's writings. We encourage others to duplicate this effort
by mirroring this site, copying selected writings from the TIA and
otherwise disseminating Trotsky's writings (!). Many of Trotsky's
writings remains to be translated from the original Russian. Many of
these writings are still buried in the archives of the Russian KGB.
Still others reside in various university archives such as the
"Trotsky Works" at Harvard. We hope to offer, eventually, ALL these
writings in as (many) Languages as possible. This will require the
efforts of dozens of volunteer transcribers, translators, etc. To be
part of this effort write the Director of the Trotsky Internet Archive
at tia (-@-) marxists.org" (Emphasis in parens added by HW)
This is a stirring declaration of *political* intention. But it is also
*part* of a demonstration that a lot of what is actually going on under
the umbrella of the "Marxist Internet Archive" is intramural partizan
socialist politics masquerading as value free scholarship. The Trotsky
archive is already immense and the plan is for it to grow as rapidly as
possible. The Stalin archive is tiny and especially after 1929 is
obviously designed to be both trivial and damning. Yet Trotsky from
roughly 1926 was a powerless polemicist/"theorist". Stalin on the other
hand remained in power until 1953 and was without doubt the single most
powerful and influential Communist leader of the entire 20th Century,
easily eclipsing Lenin much less Trotsky.
Scholars and statesmen are compelled ethically to recognize these
realities. We don't hold mere political agitators to this standard. We
don't expect partizan politicians to pretend to scholarly standards any
more than we expect petit bourgeois merchants to avoid puffing their
products.
As a closing demonstration, permit me to ask where under the MIA
umbrella are the Charles Ruthenberg, Jay Lovestone, Eugene Dennins, and
Gus Hall Internet Archives? Why is the William Z. Foster Archive
seemingly designed to downplay the Soviet connection? These gentlemen
were prominent and prolific leaders of the CPUSA. Can we conclude but
that they are non-persons (or in the case of Foster nearly so) in the
MIA because they were enemies of Trotskyism and allies of the Stalinist
Soviet Party? It really is amazing that Virginia Tech, funded by tax
dollars, has any connection with the MIA, a partizan political
operation. I think this is the case anyway. Perhaps you, David, will
explain it.
Now, ladies and gentlemen, don't misunderstand me. I am very fond of
the MIA. I just think it ought to be independent of University
connections and also ought to disclose its political nature so that it
can't be confused with academic scholarship. I suggest that it be
adopted by an overtly Trotskyist web site. Then when one does an MIA
search for "Stalin" and gets 35,100 hits while one for "Trotsky"
dredges up 88,400 it might be explicable.
By the way, the list of Marxist Authors on the MIA shows preliminary
signs of such partizan skewing too.
Hunter Watson
Hunter Watson
No? Well then, you certainly can help us with this:
The Sydney Morning Herald
Grand mythology still blinds disciples to the crimes of communism
January 10, 2006
Page 1 of 2
Leftist leaders are eulogised in a manner unthinkable in other
circumstances, writes Gerard Henderson.
THE left may be in decline in most Western societies. Yet left-wing
mythology still prevails, especially in the taxpayer-subsidised media.
On January 2, ABC television ran a profile of the Aarons family in its
Dynasties series. The program was credited to Denise Eriksen, among
others, in her capacity as head of factual entertainment. Well, the
episode was
entertaining but only some of the facts were told.
The Dynasties narrator declared that "the Aarons were once called the
royal family of Australian communism". The program focused on Sam
Aarons (1895-1971), who headed the Communist Party of Australia in
Western Australia, and his sons Laurie (1917-2005) and Eric (1919-),
along with Laurie's children Brian and Mark. Laurie and Eric both held
the position of national secretary of the communist party, based in
Sydney.
What was missing from the program was a proper analysis of what the
Aarons dynasty stood for up until the time when Laurie and Eric broke
with Moscow, following the Soviet Union's invasion of Czechoslovakia in
1968. The fact is that Sam, Laurie and Eric supported every communist
totalitarian dictator around - including Lenin, Stalin, Mao Zedong, Ho
Chi Minh and their ilk.
According to the edited collection The Black Book of Communism, "the
total approaches 100 million people killed" under communist regimes
during the 20th century.
It is understandable why Brian and Mark look back on their father with
love and affection. And no doubt Laurie was a fine family man. Yet
Dynasties failed to ask the essential question. What would Australia
have been like if the communist party had come to power any time during
the1940s and 1950s? In short, would the Aarons family and their
comrades have attempted to set
up the kind of totalitarian state which prevailed in Eastern Europe?
The answer is an unequivocal yes. Eric Aarons said as much in his
memoirs, What's Left? On page 118 he related how, in 1956, the party's
leadership discussed what response it should take to Nikita
Khrushchev's confirmation that Stalin was a mass murderer: "I made the
point at the central committee meeting which decided the matter that
our outlook was such that, had we been
in power, we too could have executed people we considered to be
objectively, even if not subjectively (that is, by intention), helping
our enemies."
In other words, Aarons is an authority for the proposition that if the
communist party had gained power in Australia, it "could have executed"
not only its outspoken enemies but also those who were opposing
communism unintentionally. There should be no surprise here. After all,
that is
precisely what communist regimes were doing at the time in Eastern
Europe parts of Asia.
It is much the same with Wilfred Burchett (1911-83), whose memoirs have
recently been republished, in substantially enlarged form, by UNSW
Press under the title Memoirs of a Rebel Journalist. The author was an
adventurous and personally charming operative who just happened to
support virtually every communist dictator who ever existed.
Burchett's 1951 book People's Democracies is a paean to all Stalinist
regimes of Eastern Europe. This issue is touched on by some, but not
all, of the book's reviewers. Yet most still find occasion to praise
the Stalinist hack as a "remarkable man" (historian Stuart Macintyre)
who was
committed to "decency and fair play" (academic Gavan McCormack).
Then there is Jenny Hocking's book Frank Hardy, which she acknowledges
was made possible due to funding by "the Australian Research Council
and the award of a QE II Research Fellowship". Lucky author.
This is essentially biography as hagiography, which all but passes over
her subject's support for the Nazi-Soviet pact in 1939-41 and Hardy's
backing for all of Stalin's crimes until he grew disillusioned with
communism some time in the 1960s. It is almost as if Hardy's one-time
support for Stalin and his heirs was justifiable. It wasn't. Which is
why some comrades quit
the part as early as 1939.
It is impossible to imagine someone who had supported Nazism or fascism
for three decades or more receiving the kind of understanding, if not
acclaim, which has recently been bestowed on the Aarons family,
Burchett and Hardy.
The tradition continues with the few remaining communist dictators. The
leftist newspaper Green Left Weekly frequently runs articles in praise
of Fidel Castro's totalitarian regime in Cuba. Last winter, the NSW
left-wing Labor MP Meredith Burgmann accepted an invitation from the
Cuban
Government to attend a conference in Havana. She was reported as having
told The Daily
Telegraph in November last year: "I spent 36 hours in a room with him
[Castro] . He was charismatic and funny."
Susie Carleton, a board member of the New Matilda online newsletter,
informed readers on December 22 about "Cuba's extraordinary social
achievements" and maintained that "Cuba is living proof that economic
growth is not a pre-condition to improving the lives of its people".
In fact, the Castro regime actively persecutes homosexuals and
intellectuals, among others, and presides over a bankrupt, controlled
economy.
The left retains its heroes only because so many leftists are in denial
about the real crimes of communists, or about what their favourite
comrades would have done had they attained power.
That's why it's possible for ABC TV to report favourably on the "royal
family" of communism. And that's why it would be unacceptable for
Dynasties to report favourably on, say, a "royal family" of Nazism or
fascism.
Gerard Henderson is executive director of the Sydney Institute.
FRAN
He is also a longstanding conservative who fancies that "greenies" are
part of the "far left". Why his opinion should carry any weight at all
in assessing leftists is a mystery to me.
As to the Aarons mob, they were longstanding pro-Moscow Stalinists who
jumped ship in favour of Social Democracy in 1968. Trotskyists would
have been high on their list of people to execute, whether they
bothered to describe them as witting agents of the counterrevolution or
not.
These days, as I've said previously, while I think there is much to
recommend the analysis of the USSR's polity immanent in Lenin and
developed by Trotsky, I'm probably closest to being an Anarchist.
What any of this has to do with the description of De Leon in
marxists.org is hard to fathom however.
Fran
Bert Byfield
> recommend the analysis of the USSR's polity immanent in Lenin and
> developed by Trotsky, I'm probably closest to being an Anarchist.
That's like saying "While there is much to recommend the theory of
evolution, I'm probably closest to being a creationist."
Hunter Watson
Anarchism is a very attractive vision, suitable perhaps for semi-rural
life a century or two ago. It's a crying shame the 21st Century is so
complex. I could happily go backward in time.
Some of this thread is I suppose about as remote from De Leon per se as
Social Democracy is from Stalinism. It was really about the ways of
politicians.
Are you partial to the BBC's historical epics on DVD? In 2004 they
made a film of the Elizabeth Gaskell novel _North & South_ (Daniela
Denby-Ashe, Richard Armitage and Sinead Cusack, four episodes, two
disks, 233 minutes of industrial revolution film noir set in the gritty
North of England.) There are some odd twists. The cotton mill owner is
capable of redemption for example. Patty and I watched it all the way
through on two consecutive evenings. The after images linger. The
_Lower Depths_ come to England in the 1850s, just when Marx was writing
about it in _Kapital_.
FRAN
Sadly for the analogy, there's not a conflict between the two
propositions I advanced that is comparable to that between
creatinionists and evolutionists. An Anarchist can certainly accept the
analysis while drawing quite distinctly different conclusions to that
of Trotsky or Lenin about the scope for human action.
Fran
Bert Byfield
>>> recommend the analysis of the USSR's polity immanent in Lenin and
>>> developed by Trotsky, I'm probably closest to being an Anarchist.
>>> Fran
>> That's like saying "While there is much to recommend the theory of
>> evolution, I'm probably closest to being a creationist."
> Sadly for the analogy, there's not a conflict between the two
> propositions I advanced that is comparable to that between
> creatinionists and evolutionists.
Saying it does not make it so. I remember years ago going to an anarchist
meeting only to discover it was socialists in disguise, pretending to be
anarchists in order to draw out gullible converts. They affected to be
afraid their employers would discover their politics, which was silly of
them. No employers takes seriously the politics of people who cannot
distinguish between a system of minimum government and a system of
maximum government. uh Present company exempted.
> An Anarchist can certainly accept the
> analysis while drawing quite distinctly different conclusions to that
> of Trotsky or Lenin about the scope for human action. Fran
You mean both anarchists and socialists can jointly suffer from envy of
capitalist successes? I suppose. But that's as far as the common ground
extends.
Hunter Watson
> >>> These days, as I've said previously, while I think there is much to
> >>> recommend the analysis of the USSR's polity immanent in Lenin and
> >>> developed by Trotsky, I'm probably closest to being an Anarchist.
I thought I understood this at first: I read it to mean, "I think there
is much to be said for the analysis that the USSR's bloodshed and
oppression arose from Lenin's Bolshevism, was further developed by
Trotsky and, therefore, upon reconsideration I now feel that Anarchism
is more congenial and akin to my native humanism."
Having re-read it I think I did not understand. Now it looks as though
you are saying that despite discouragement with the history of
Bolshevism in power, you still believe that the doctrine and its ends
are attractive--despite diminished confidence---but that Anarchism is
becoming more interesting as time goes on.
Anarchism, ever since first reading biographies of men like Kropotkin
and Baukunin as a late teen, has appealed to me as an effort to combine
liberty and moderate socialism, i.e., half of what Bert is looking for.
But I'm very discouraged as to such possibilities in this era. All
that's left to us is to improve conditions inside the system. The
alternatives are far too horrible to contemplate. And it can be done
effectively even if it is a slow slog. We've talked about these things
before. The service industry, for example, can be forced to pay its
way. The shining Marxist city on the hill isn't possible. We know that
from experience and must move on.
FRAN
Hunter Watson wrote:
> Fran:
>
> > >>> These days, as I've said previously, while I think there is much to
> > >>> recommend the analysis of the USSR's polity immanent in Lenin and
> > >>> developed by Trotsky, I'm probably closest to being an Anarchist.
>
> I thought I understood this at first: I read it to mean, "I think there
> is much to be said for the analysis that the USSR's bloodshed and
> oppression arose from Lenin's Bolshevism,
I can't imagine how you got that but never mind ... probably a mindset
thing.
> was further developed by
> Trotsky and, therefore, upon reconsideration I now feel that Anarchism
> is more congenial and akin to my native humanism."
>
The last part is reasonable but to clarify ...
It seems to me that opne could accept that the revolution was
appropriated by a bureuacratic caste without actually believing that a
more progressive result was likely in the conditions of Russia in
November (NS) 1917.
The reality at the time for anyone with a genuine interest in the
wellbeing of humanity (and I certainly count myself amongst those) was
that prospects for a progressive outcome from political developments at
the time were bleak, and entirely dependent on socialist revolution in
the European heartland. The best for which Russia could realistically
hope was to hang on until revolution in Europe, or at least Germany,
followed by Europe, came to their aid. Even at the time, this was
improbable, if not actually implausible. Yet there were no better
options -- all other strategies would have been worse.
Thus, the Bolshevik strategy ought to have been to avoid attempts at
grand schemes and to do as little as possible in Russia, attempting to
do no more than deal with the most pressing problems -- getting out of
the war, restarting agriculture and civilian transport and industry
etc. Regrettably, the expectations of the peasantry ran to much more
than that, and many saw the Bolshevik Revolution as recasting control
of industry immediately, which led to chaos. Land siezures took place
entirely independently of the Bolsheviks and since the precise model of
land redistribution had never been formalised (per farm worker?, per
family?) there was little good alterntaive but to allow local soviets
to make decisions. Similarly, the Bolsheviks weren't too keen on
factory seizures either, and particularly the idea amongst some
anarchists that the facory belonged to the workers in it as a kind of
local asset.
With hindsight, the horrific dangers of unaccountable state power are
vivid and if anyone could have imagined the monstrous outcome of the
conflict, there's little doubt in my mind that Bolsheviks would have
energetically resisted giving Rabkrin and Cheka the free hand that they
got and the destruction of inner party democracy at that 10th Party
Congress.
Now that this *is* known I believe no socialist with a skerrick of a
chance of getting near authority amongst working people is in any doubt
that any attempt to improve upon the existing order must have human
freedom at the centre of the plan. In my view, creating a vehicle that
remains open and accountable and a bona fide expression of the
interests of working people is the key. Asserting that state ownership
of productive assets = workers social interests is simply untenable.
Fran
dwal...@igc.org
use a definition supplied by the SLP. Defintions now are submitted
Wikapedia-style or brought over "en mass" from other sources. They have
not all been veted. The most obvious link, something Hunter, and othe
trolls have failed to realize, is that we have all of De Leon's
writings and the biography on THAT page links not to the MIA's
Encyclopedia but to the SLP lengthier biographies which are sympathetic
too De Leon and more fact based.
#We have used other writers on the MIA to help in definitions...in
fact, the editors of the Encylcopedia, which don't include me, *prefer*
to use more "primary" sources for biographies than defintions written
by editors. Instead of using Cannon, or only Cannon, they could of used
contemporaries of De Leon to help. Why don't you write them a letter,
they are very responsive.
#My own politics are not particularly relevant to the MIA. I'm one of
maybe 8 or 9 Trotskyists out of 40 or more volunteers. I don't think
the Trotskyists have ever voted as a bloc on *any* issue on the MIA
that I'm aware of. The MIA was *started* by Trotskyists and a few
independents to provide the works of classic Marxism...and re-project
what Marxism is and isn't, which answers your question about Stalin. In
fact, all the writers are placed up there, including Stalin and Mao (we
have his COMPLETE works, in English and Chinese, the only place on the
Internet that does this), by volunteers. So, anyone who wants to
contribute more texts to build the JVStalin archive is more than
welcome. Our view is that Stalinism is NOT Marxism. That does not mean
that we *exclude* any writer (Adam Smith to Karl Marx to Enver Hoxha
are all on the MIA), we include any one who is dead so long as they
have a bearing on the course of Marxism, one way or another. If the
Foster Archive is small, it's because there is little interest beyond
what's there that a volunteer wanted to put up. We don't 'assign'
people to do writings, it is 100% what a volunteer is interested in.
That is how we always work. If you are intested in the laundry list of
writers you mentioned later in this thread, then by all means...start
scanning or shut up about...put up or shutup Hunter.
#The MIA is not Trotskyist but it recognizes Trotsky as a central
exponent of Marxism. That is about as far as LT goes.
#Everything else you wrote about the MIA is a basically drivel and no
one takes it seriously (like most of what you write). The TIA intro was
written by me and it's totally in line, and truthful, with what the MIA
represents as a whole: a scholarly insitution seeking to provide the
collected writings of Marxists and those that influenced Marxism.
David
dwal...@igc.org
if anything is available in ENGLISH by Dzerhinsky. The MIA doesn't
'agree' with Lenin about him, but I certainly do. He played a very
valuable role during the 1918-1919 period in tracking down White
sympathisers and offing their sorry asses. Clearly he missed some. Oh
well. I'm curious why YOU think the Checka was more important than the
Red Army? That is something that Lenin would certainly disagree with
you on. And, most other scholers too. And, it wasn't an "organ of the
Bolsheviks" it was an organ of the All-Russian Union of Soviets. This
is why the Checka was composed, proportionally, of Anarchists and
Left-Social Revolutionaries when it was formed.
David
Bert Byfield
> appropriated by a bureuacratic caste without actually believing that a
> more progressive result was likely in the conditions of Russia in
> November (NS) 1917.
Nor at any other time nor place. The Russian socialists had their chance
to demonstrate what they were about. They murdered 30,000,000 trying to
force people into the socialist mode. None of it worked.
> The reality at the time for anyone with a genuine interest in the
> wellbeing of humanity (and I certainly count myself amongst those) was
> that prospects for a progressive outcome from political developments
> at the time were bleak, and entirely dependent on socialist revolution
> in the European heartland.
Only because a communist country cannot survive while its citizens can
escape it, because all the smart ones flee.
> The best for which Russia could
> realistically hope was to hang on until revolution in Europe, or at
> least Germany, followed by Europe, came to their aid. Even at the
> time, this was improbable, if not actually implausible. Yet there were
> no better options -- all other strategies would have been worse.
And always will be. It is simply a bad idea. That socialists keep trying
to institute a bad idea simply to gain personal power does not say much
for their character, no matter how highly nor loudly they proclaim their
good intentions.
> Thus, the Bolshevik strategy ought to have been to avoid attempts at
> grand schemes and to do as little as possible in Russia, attempting to
> do no more than deal with the most pressing problems -- getting out of
> the war, restarting agriculture and civilian transport and industry
> etc.
They were daytime-job socialists, not like their armchair American
versions. They tried very hard to make their plan work. It didn't.
> Regrettably, the expectations of the peasantry ran to much more
> than that,
Yeah. They wanted to be paid for their crops, at a price they considered
reasonable. Instead, they were robbed and shot. They didn't appreciate
what the comrades were trying to do to uh *for* them.
> and many saw the Bolshevik Revolution as recasting control
> of industry immediately, which led to chaos. Land siezures took place
> entirely independently of the Bolsheviks
Independently? Surely you jest. The Bolsheviks were the ones out there
"collecting" the crops and trashing everything and shooting farmers.
> and since the precise model
> of land redistribution had never been formalised (per farm worker?,
> per family?)
Precise model? That's like saying the precise model for mugging little
old ladies in the park has not been formalised (per little old lady? per
purse? per boyscouts helping the ladies cross the street)...
> there was little good alterntaive but to allow local
> soviets to make decisions.
Crap. Lenin has his fingerprints all over the "collection" plans.
> Similarly, the Bolsheviks weren't too keen
> on factory seizures either, and particularly the idea amongst some
> anarchists that the facory belonged to the workers in it as a kind of
> local asset.
Those anarchists were jailed and/or shot. No problem.
> With hindsight, the horrific dangers of unaccountable state power are
> vivid and if anyone could have imagined the monstrous outcome of the
> conflict, there's little doubt in my mind that Bolsheviks would have
> energetically resisted giving Rabkrin and Cheka the free hand that
> they got and the destruction of inner party democracy at that 10th
> Party Congress.
Nonsense. Felix Dzerzhinski was specially picked by Lenin to do what
Felix did best (shoot people). The Cheka did not have a free hand -- they
did what they had been ordered to do by the Party.
> Now that this *is* known I believe no socialist with a skerrick of a
> chance of getting near authority amongst working people is in any
> doubt that any attempt to improve upon the existing order must have
> human freedom at the centre of the plan.
That part will of necessity be a lie, since socialism is based on the
absolute and ruthless power of the state.
> In my view, creating a
> vehicle that remains open and accountable and a bona fide expression
> of the interests of working people is the key. Asserting that state
> ownership of productive assets = workers social interests is simply
> untenable. Fran
Yep. Better tricks are needed to sell this lead balloon.
Bert Byfield
> if anything is available in ENGLISH by Dzerhinsky. The MIA doesn't
> 'agree' with Lenin about him, but I certainly do.
The opposite problem exists with stuff writtin in Russian: huge mounds of
crap were written, in the thought-controlled Soviet world.
> He played a very
> valuable role during the 1918-1919 period in tracking down White
> sympathisers and offing their sorry asses.
Fran, you noting this attitude? Murdering people for their sympathies --
it's a socialist thing.
> Clearly he missed some. Oh
Very regrettable to socialists that any non-believers escaped being
murdered...
> well. I'm curious why YOU think the Checka was more important than the
> Red Army? That is something that Lenin would certainly disagree with
> you on. And, most other scholers too. And, it wasn't an "organ of the
> Bolsheviks" it was an organ of the All-Russian Union of Soviets. This
You are amazingly gullible, or a fanatic ideologue, if you do not know
that the Bolsheviks were in absolute control of the army and the
political police.
> is why the Checka was composed, proportionally, of Anarchists and
> Left-Social Revolutionaries when it was formed. David
It was one way they could prove their loyalty to Lenin and thus stay
alive.
Hunter Watson
> Hey, stupid, do you speak or read Russian? You ought too because little
> if anything is available in ENGLISH by Dzerhinsky.
Some is available in English. I've already given you an example of it.
I've been encountering snippets of it for over 40 years. They can be
collected.
Doesn't MIA support foreign language archives? In the short run putting
up Dzerzhinsky in the original Russian would assist both the Russian
people and Russia specialists. It would also encourage translation of
the texts. The question here is one of political manuevering, of
keeping the inconvenient skeleton in the closet.
The MIA doesn't
> 'agree' with Lenin about him, but I certainly do.
The 'MIA' is is a legal fiction incapable of agreement. The question is
as to the Trotskyists who apparently run it. By treating Dzerzhinsky as
a non-person they protect the reputation of Lenin. It's one of those
last ditch things, doomed to failure but perceived as critically
necessary none the less.
He played a very
> valuable role during the 1918-1919 period in tracking down White
> sympathisers and offing their sorry asses.
My, my, David. How is it that you seem always able to muster such
scholarly detachment?
Actually, at Lenin's direction he was already committing these crimes
in 1917.
> Clearly he missed some.
Surely not for lack of effort--or for procedural scruples:
"...Dzerzhinsky, who from the earliest days had played a decisive role
in the PRMC (The Bolsheviks' Petrograd Revolutionary Military
Committee), characterized it as '...a light, flexable structure that
could swing into action at a moment's notice, without any bueaucratic
interference. There were no restrictions when the time came for the
iron fist of the dictatorship of the proletariat to smite its foe.' "
(Werth)
Oh
> well. I'm curious why YOU think the Checka was more important than the
> Red Army?
I'll get to that a little later.
That is something that Lenin would certainly disagree with
> you on. And, most other scholers too. And, it wasn't an "organ of the
> Bolsheviks" it was an organ of the All-Russian Union of Soviets. This
> is why the Checka was composed, proportionally, of Anarchists and
> Left-Social Revolutionaries when it was formed.
Let's not jump ahead here. The PRMC was in existence for 53 days. It
was "made up" of some 60 officials, "including forty-eight Bolsheviks,
a few Socialist Revolutionaries of the far left, and a handful of
Anarchists; and it was officially under the direction of a chairman,
the Socialist Revolutionary Aleksandr Lazimir, who was assisted by a
group of four that included Aleksandr Antonov-Ovseenko and Dzerzhinsky.
In fact during the 53 days of the PRMC's existence, more than 6,000
orders were drawn up, most of them scribbled on old bits of paper, and
some twenty different people signed their name as chairman or
secretary." (Id.) The PRMC was objectively a Bolshevik "organ" from the
beginning and as Dzerzhinsky admitted above, it was hard at work even
then "smiting" its foes.
"Its (the Cheka's) beginnings had been modest. . . .Dzerzhinsky had
recruited approximately 100 men, for the most part old
comrades-in-arms, mostly Poles and people from the Baltic states,
nearly all of whom had also worked for the PRMC, and who became the
future leaders of the GPU of the 1920s and the NKVD of the 1930s:
Martin Latsis, Viacheslav Menzhinsky, Stanislav Messing, Grigory Moroz,
Jan Peters, Meir Trilisser, Josif Unshlikht, and Genrikh Yagoda." (Id.)
All of these men fully deserve their own archives on the MIA.
Hunter Watson
FRAN
Bert Byfield wrote:
> > Hey, stupid, do you speak or read Russian? You ought too because little
> > if anything is available in ENGLISH by Dzerhinsky. The MIA doesn't
> > 'agree' with Lenin about him, but I certainly do.
>
> The opposite problem exists with stuff writtin in Russian: huge mounds of
> crap were written, in the thought-controlled Soviet world.
>
> > He played a very
> > valuable role during the 1918-1919 period in tracking down White
> > sympathisers and offing their sorry asses.
>
> Fran, you noting this attitude? Murdering people for their sympathies --
> it's a socialist thing.
>
You nsure this isn't someone spoofing him. Until now, I've read him as
fairly well educated and careful to get his text correct, but he has
spelled "Cheka" as Checka twice and made a number of other errors,
including Dzerzhinsky's last name.
It could be Green Jeans, since this is more his hectoring style, though
I suppose David might just be razzing you. You do like to hector as
well.
Fran
Hunter Watson
Naw, this is David. He's said things like this before and never claimed
later that they were forgeries.
Hunter Watson
FRAN wrote:
> Bert Byfield wrote:
> > > Hey, stupid, do you speak or read Russian? You ought too because little
> > > if anything is available in ENGLISH by Dzerhinsky. The MIA doesn't
> > > 'agree' with Lenin about him, but I certainly do.
> >
> > The opposite problem exists with stuff writtin in Russian: huge mounds of
> > crap were written, in the thought-controlled Soviet world.
> >
> > > He played a very
> > > valuable role during the 1918-1919 period in tracking down White
> > > sympathisers and offing their sorry asses.
> >
> > Fran, you noting this attitude? Murdering people for their sympathies --
> > it's a socialist thing.
> >
>
> You nsure this isn't someone spoofing him. Until now, I've read him as
> fairly well educated and careful to get his text correct, but he has
> spelled "Cheka" as Checka twice and made a number of other errors,
> including Dzerzhinsky's last name.
Let's presume it is David. Will you respond to Bert's point--presumably
with a denunciation of the policy of murduring people for their
sympathies?
FRAN
Hunter Watson wrote:
> FRAN wrote:
> > Bert Byfield wrote:
> > > > Hey, stupid, do you speak or read Russian? You ought too because little
> > > > if anything is available in ENGLISH by Dzerhinsky. The MIA doesn't
> > > > 'agree' with Lenin about him, but I certainly do.
> > >
> > > The opposite problem exists with stuff writtin in Russian: huge mounds of
> > > crap were written, in the thought-controlled Soviet world.
> > >
> > > > He played a very
> > > > valuable role during the 1918-1919 period in tracking down White
> > > > sympathisers and offing their sorry asses.
> > >
> > > Fran, you noting this attitude? Murdering people for their sympathies --
> > > it's a socialist thing.
> > >
> >
> > You nsure this isn't someone spoofing him. Until now, I've read him as
> > fairly well educated and careful to get his text correct, but he has
> > spelled "Cheka" as Checka twice and made a number of other errors,
> > including Dzerzhinsky's last name.
>
> Let's presume it is David. Will you respond to Bert's point--presumably
> with a denunciation of the policy of murduring people for their
> sympathies?
>
Of course. Opinions are not crimes, nor even is innocent association
with those committing crimes, or membership of classes held to have
committed crimes. Coercion of people who are innocent of crimes is a
stain on the hands of those taking responsibility for the polity.
Clear enough?
Fran
Hunter Watson
You use the Virginia Tech system to do *that*?
Eventually we'll
> use a definition supplied by the SLP.
You intend to use the Virginia Tech system to disseminate SLP political
material?
Defintions now are submitted
> Wikapedia-style or brought over "en mass" from other sources.
Yes, but what sources typically?
They have
> not all been veted.
Do MIA does not exercise the editorial control necessary to balance and
the exclusion of political speech such as your introduction to the TIA?
The most obvious link, something Hunter, and othe
> trolls have failed to realize, is that we have all of De Leon's
> writings and the biography on THAT page links not to the MIA's
> Encyclopedia but to the SLP lengthier biographies which are sympathetic
> too De Leon and more fact based.
I'm happy to hear that but I think your reply to my points about
Dzerzhinsky and Stalin and the prominent CPUSA figures is not
responsive. *If* the MIA board and editorial leadership has a
non-partizan scholarly duty to see to it that that the MIA is not de
facto captured by any faction with a political axe to grind simply
because they are more activist in sending their material to you, and
*if* it has a duty to see to it that the Marxist movement overall is
depicted with balance rather than skewed for political purposes no
matter whose they may be, then I suggest again that those duties seem
not to be being honored. The reason I ask these questions is because of
the Virginia Tech connection which I do not understand. You have not
gotten to that. In any event I question whether a tax supported
university may use its facilities to support the promulgation of
partizan political material. In the TIA preface you essentially admit
such partizan purposes.
I could be wrong. Maybe it's permitted for Young Republicans,
neo-nazis, Marxist/Leninists and other political organizations to send
their stuff world wide using University facilities. Maybe not. Can you
tell us? It seems to me that using an empty classroom in the evening to
hold a meeting is one thing but this might be another. Basically, if
the effort is a scholarly extension of the University it should be
balanced and value neutral. If it isn't maybe the University should not
be involved. Again, I simply don't know---except to say that I don't
think these questions are "drivel".
> #We have used other writers on the MIA to help in definitions...in
> fact, the editors of the Encylcopedia, which don't include me, *prefer*
> to use more "primary" sources for biographies than defintions written
> by editors. Instead of using Cannon, or only Cannon, they could of used
> contemporaries of De Leon to help. Why don't you write them a letter,
> they are very responsive.
>
> #My own politics are not particularly relevant to the MIA. I'm one of
> maybe 8 or 9 Trotskyists out of 40 or more volunteers. I don't think
> the Trotskyists have ever voted as a bloc on *any* issue on the MIA
> that I'm aware of. The MIA was *started* by Trotskyists and a few
> independents to provide the works of classic Marxism...and re-project
> what Marxism is and isn't, which answers your question about Stalin.
The Trotskyists were going to tell the world what Marxism is and has
been on a University system?
In
> fact, all the writers are placed up there, including Stalin and Mao (we
> have his COMPLETE works, in English and Chinese, the only place on the
> Internet that does this), by volunteers. So, anyone who wants to
> contribute more texts to build the JVStalin archive is more than
> welcome.
The question is not what might be but what is.
Our view is that Stalinism is NOT Marxism.
That's the Trotskyist view, not the view of mainstream scholarship.
That's a thoroughly politicized view.
That does not mean
> that we *exclude* any writer (Adam Smith to Karl Marx to Enver Hoxha
> are all on the MIA), we include any one who is dead so long as they
> have a bearing on the course of Marxism, one way or another. If the
> Foster Archive is small, it's because there is little interest beyond
> what's there that a volunteer wanted to put up. We don't 'assign'
> people to do writings, it is 100% what a volunteer is interested in.
> That is how we always work.
Fine, but if the effect is skewed rather than balanced and objectively
MIA is using University facilities to promote a particular brand of
totalitarian politics? I just have the sense, David, that something's
not quite kosher here. I doubt, for example, that MIA would qualify for
501 (c) (3) contributions deductibility. Tell me if I'm wrong. If I'm
right the reason would be that it's political. All you have to to allay
my concern is to be responsive.
If you are intested in the laundry list of
> writers you mentioned later in this thread, then by all means...start
> scanning or shut up about...put up or shutup Hunter.
I have no desire or obligation whatever to contribute to "marxists.org"
other, perhaps, than to buy the CDs. I really do like the resource. I
just wish it weren't politicized and were more balanced, i.e.,
scholarly.
>
> #The MIA is not Trotskyist but it recognizes Trotsky as a central
> exponent of Marxism. That is about as far as LT goes.
That's a political, not a scholarly, judgment. You don't seem to get
the gist of my point. Nixon was a central exponent of Republicanism but
his doctrines are not sold by use of university facilities. They are
tax supported institutions.
>
> #Everything else you wrote about the MIA is a basically drivel and no
> one takes it seriously (like most of what you write). The TIA intro was
> written by me and it's totally in line, and truthful, with what the MIA
> represents as a whole: a scholarly insitution seeking to provide the
> collected writings of Marxists and those that influenced Marxism.
The Cannon quote you chose is naught but political cant. It's polemics
devoid of objective content. Formalistic, indeed. Scholarship implies
balance and objectivity, David.
Hunter Watson
Elegantly stated, but it comes from you about whom I've had no doubts.
David believes (as did Trotsky) in "offing sorry asses" for indulging
the wrong sympathies. Historically this is surely Trotskyist. What
could be more political? If our taxes are supporting promulgation of
this stuff under the guise of a "scholarly institution" there will be
no end of it. Where do the skinheads apply, Fran? I don't know for sure
that Virginia Tech is supporting this but if it is I think it's wrong.
P.S. Should the working class have been held responsible for the crimes
of the Bolshevik class?
Bert Byfield
>> point--presumably with a denunciation of the policy of murduring
>> people for their sympathies?
> Of course. Opinions are not crimes, nor even is innocent association
> with those committing crimes, or membership of classes held to have
> committed crimes. Coercion of people who are innocent of crimes is a
> stain on the hands of those taking responsibility for the polity.
> Clear enough? Fran
Very clear. You have become an anti-communist.
dwal...@igc.org
Hunter Watson wrote:
> dwal...@igc.org wrote:
> > #Dude, you don't get it. We mirror the SLP's web site.
>
> You use the Virginia Tech system to do *that*?
>
> Eventually we'll
> > use a definition supplied by the SLP.
>
> You intend to use the Virginia Tech system to disseminate SLP political
> material?
>
> Defintions now are submitted
> > Wikapedia-style or brought over "en mass" from other sources.
>
> Yes, but what sources typically?
>
> They have
> > not all been veted.
>
> Do MIA does not exercise the editorial control necessary to balance and
> the exclusion of political speech such as your introduction to the TIA?
Sure, sometimes, sometimes it gets by people who edit it. I stated
before *write them* and they will respond. I believe it is editor (@)
marxists.org or maybe 'editors". Go to the glossary, it won't kill you,
you did it once. I'm not in charge of it.
> The most obvious link, something Hunter, and othe
> I'm happy to hear that but I think your reply to my points about
> Dzerzhinsky and Stalin and the prominent CPUSA figures is not
> responsive. *If* the MIA board and editorial leadership has a
> non-partizan scholarly duty to see to it that that the MIA is not de
> facto captured by any faction with a political axe to grind simply
> because they are more activist in sending their material to you, and
> *if* it has a duty to see to it that the Marxist movement overall is
> depicted with balance rather than skewed for political purposes no
> matter whose they may be, then I suggest again that those duties seem
> not to be being honored.
What kind of assine logic is this? We are what we say we are in our
Charter. That's it. We consider ourselves, as do *thousands* of
univerities, including the US War Collage of all insitutions, to be a
useful resource. What is "Marxist" and what isn't can't be, won't be,
defined by anti-communist schills. It will be defined by those that are
Marxist. We don't claim to be 'balanced', we claim to put up the CORE
of the MIA: the writings of classic dead Marxists. That we do, without
prejudice.
> The reason I ask these questions is because of
> the Virginia Tech connection which I do not understand. You have not
> gotten to that. In any event I question whether a tax supported
> university may use its facilities to support the promulgation of
> partizan political material. In the TIA preface you essentially admit
> such partizan purposes.
I haven't a clue about what the Virginia Tech connection is other than
they mirror our site. You see Hunter, the scholarly value of the MIA is
beyond your very narrow perception of what is "scholarly". For example,
various anti-Communist 'scholars', like Richard Pipes, can write all
the crap they want and, I will defend the fact that it is totally
UNBIASED and yet scholarly...because he started *with a thesis*. He
attempts to provide evidence to back up this thesis. It's still
scholary even if there is not a Russian scholar alive who thinks Pipes
is "balanced". So, get over it, clearly every university that links to
us or mirrors us considers the fact that we have these writings worth
it enough to use as a resource.
> I could be wrong. Maybe it's permitted for Young Republicans,
> neo-nazis, Marxist/Leninists and other political organizations to send
> their stuff world wide using University facilities.
> Maybe not. Can you tell us?
How do I know what people use to send us material? Our volunteers come
from every walk of life and use tons of different sources. I think
maybe I'm not getting your point? We've had contributions from lots' of
people and we do not ask what their politics are, we don't care.
> It seems to me that using an empty classroom in the evening to
> hold a meeting is one thing but this might be another. Basically, if
> the effort is a scholarly extension of the University it should be
> balanced and value neutral. If it isn't maybe the University should not
> be involved. Again, I simply don't know---except to say that I don't
> think these questions are "drivel".
I think they are because you are asking them from total ignorance. Read
the introduction/charter/bylaws at marx.org/admin/intro. They are by no
means perfect and I have serious differences with them but it should
answer all your questons, and maybe raise new ones.
> The Trotskyists were going to tell the world what Marxism is and has
> been on a University system?
No, and I don't get this "univserity" connection at all. You got to
explain this. The MIA has a definition of Marxism (something I don't
agree with but abide by). Partly because it is a non-Trotskyist
definition written by the majority of the volunteers back in 2000 or so
and my Trotskyist views were defeated. Oh well. I learn to live with
it. The MIA has the right, to get to your point, to define anything it
wants anyway it wants. It is up to the *individual* users to decide if
it's appropriate or not.
> In
> > fact, all the writers are placed up there, including Stalin and Mao (we
> > have his COMPLETE works, in English and Chinese, the only place on the
> > Internet that does this), by volunteers. So, anyone who wants to
> > contribute more texts to build the JVStalin archive is more than
> > welcome.
>
> The question is not what might be but what is.
>
> Our view is that Stalinism is NOT Marxism.
...and that's up to what the volunteers want. We recently started
putting up more Stalin, to cite one of dozens of examples, and then the
volunteer quit, moved onto other things. You can't suck it out of your
thumb. We've had 100s of volunteers come and go, some submitting lots'
of material, some only sending in one piece by some obscure dead
communist.
> That's the Trotskyist view, not the view of mainstream scholarship.
> That's a thoroughly politicized view.
"Mainstream"? What the hell is that? Some sort of "politcal
correctness"? Oh, you mean mainstream US scholarship? Sorry, we take
our cues from the entire world scholarship, from France, Italian,
Algerian scholarship. We're not locked into the Yale/Standford Axis of
Evil...
>
> That does not mean
> > that we *exclude* any writer (Adam Smith to Karl Marx to Enver Hoxha
> > are all on the MIA), we include any one who is dead so long as they
> > have a bearing on the course of Marxism, one way or another. If the
> > Foster Archive is small, it's because there is little interest beyond
> > what's there that a volunteer wanted to put up. We don't 'assign'
> > people to do writings, it is 100% what a volunteer is interested in.
> > That is how we always work.
>
> Fine, but if the effect is skewed rather than balanced and objectively
> MIA is using University facilities to promote a particular brand of
> totalitarian politics? I just have the sense, David, that something's
> not quite kosher here. I doubt, for example, that MIA would qualify for
> 501 (c) (3) contributions deductibility. Tell me if I'm wrong. If I'm
> right the reason would be that it's political. All you have to to allay
> my concern is to be responsive.
We are 501 (c) (3). Lots of far more political organizations are
non-profit. The deductibility issue is only of concern for groups that
endorse candidates. Period. So, the Republican Party can not by 501 but
every think tank, the 700 Club, various non-endorsing rightwing groups,
etc are all legally 501 organizations.
>
>
> If you are intested in the laundry list of
> > writers you mentioned later in this thread, then by all means...start
> > scanning or shut up about...put up or shutup Hunter.
>
> I have no desire or obligation whatever to contribute to "marxists.org"
> other, perhaps, than to buy the CDs. I really do like the resource. I
> just wish it weren't politicized and were more balanced, i.e.,
> scholarly.
We have different views. Agree to disagree.
> >
> > #The MIA is not Trotskyist but it recognizes Trotsky as a central
> > exponent of Marxism. That is about as far as LT goes.
>
> That's a political, not a scholarly, judgment. You don't seem to get
> the gist of my point. Nixon was a central exponent of Republicanism but
> his doctrines are not sold by use of university facilities. They are
> tax supported institutions.
Actually, I can probably back up every statement I wrote on the TIA
with facts. And, you are wrong about Nixon. Shortly after his death
there was a whole spate of university supported symposiums on Nixon,
some clearly slanted to one direction or other. You have to get over
this 'balanced' thing that no institution is held too.
> >
> > #Everything else you wrote about the MIA is a basically drivel and no
> > one takes it seriously (like most of what you write). The TIA intro was
> > written by me and it's totally in line, and truthful, with what the MIA
> > represents as a whole: a scholarly insitution seeking to provide the
> > collected writings of Marxists and those that influenced Marxism.
>
> The Cannon quote you chose is naught but political cant. It's polemics
> devoid of objective content. Formalistic, indeed. Scholarship implies
> balance and objectivity, David.
Only for the definition, and I told you I agree that the Cannon quote,
as it's presented, is both unnessary and, IMO, not even factually
accurate.
David
FRAN
Well anti-random, haphazard or politically-driven physical coercion
anyway.
Fran
FRAN
I may have missed it by I can't recall Trotsky asserting that mere
political belief was a sufficient reason for any state determining the
status of one's health. That was certainly *not* my belief when I
participated in Trotskyist political events. During wars and violent
conflicts, inevitably, as I've said, dreadful stuff happens -- scores
are settled, people take advantage, rumours are spread and people get
victimised. The protagonists in such conflicts (all of them!) bear some
responsibility for what ensues for as long as, bearing in mind what
they should have known at the time, they might have acted otherwise
with better results. That's a far cry though from endorsing wholesale
political murder. I don't do it and never will.
> What
> could be more political? If our taxes are supporting promulgation of
> this stuff under the guise of a "scholarly institution" there will be
> no end of it. Where do the skinheads apply, Fran?
I've been following your debate with David but I'm unconvinced your
claim stands. David's opinions, whatever they are, surely aren't
relevant to the tax-status of MIA. They publish material. It is
scholarly. You recognise it as valuable. You surely wouldn't be
claiming that David's personal political views that don't AFAIK appear
on MIA ought to be a relevant consideration for the ability of MIA to
have some connection with a site supported by the US state?
> I don't know for sure
> that Virginia Tech is supporting this but if it is I think it's wrong.
>
> P.S. Should the working class have been held responsible for the crimes
> of the Bolshevik class?
Well if the Whites had won, they would have been. They weren't
squeamish about murdering wholsale anyone suspected of red sympathies,
or benefiting from land redistribution.
Fran
dwal...@igc.org
*want* to do is to associate every off-handed and humorous ironic
remark with a smear of the MIA. They have this sort of "love-hate"
thing going with the MIA. They ought to get lives and move on since the
MIA is not going anywhere but up. They should check out the
Encyclopedia of Trotskyism On-Line, which has been growing by leaps and
bounds, the Early American Marxism archive, and tons of other new
items:
What you probably won't find is anyone avocating for the MIA that
people ought to be killed for their opinions. I don't know anyone who
is a real Marxist who believes that. Certainly, in times of Civil War
as you or someone pointed out, all sorts of nasty things are done. Most
of the state terrorism, all of it for all I know, was directed at those
individuals and groups that *took up arms* against Soviet rule.
Bert, or whomever, doesn't believe the make up of the original Cheka
was made up of political opponents (albeit tacticaly allied) of the
Bolsheviks. It upsets his comic-book world view: Bolsheviks: bad;
anti-Bolsheviks: good.
I can't do anything about their crude views of history. At least Hunter
tries to look things up. Bert is just in the peanut gallery looking for
pictureso of naked women.
David
dwal...@igc.org
"Doesn't MIA support foreign language archives? In the short run
putting
up Dzerzhinsky in the original Russian would assist both the Russian
people and Russia specialists. It would also encourage translation of
the texts. The question here is one of political manuevering, of
keeping the inconvenient skeleton in the closet.
The MIA doesn't "
You are so clueless. Have you even looked at the Russian page? Find
someone who does. We used to link to a Russian site with few files on
our own server. Our last volunteer brought them over, or at least some
of them, to our server. Are you willing to put the Russian stuff that
is on the web (if it is, I've never seen it)? You are welcome to come
and format the pages and we'll give you server access to do it. Our
position is to get everything out there up on the web. We have NO
Russian volunteers rightnow. Would you like to put your money where
your hole is an recruit some for us? But those volunteer have to *want*
to put up Dzerzhinsky. Since we've established that everyone is welcome
who wants to build the MIA, and we are open to any and all texts by
dead Marxists (and some living ones in various subject/history
archives) and anyone can put anything up what is Hunter whining
about??? Why does he have to lie about the views of the MIA? Anyone???
If I spoke Russian, my priorities would be to get Lenin up (which, BTW,
is on the Internet, but again, we have no volunteers to bring more of
his stuff over to the MIA) Trotsky, Rakovsky, Parvus, Phlekanov and
Dzerzhinsky, in that order. But, unlike Hunters fantasy world, and
because he refuses to learn Russian to help us, alas, we are without
these valuable writers.
We are a volunteer organization and everything flows from that and that
alone.
David
Bert Byfield
>> crimes of the Bolshevik class?
> Well if the Whites had won, they would have been. They weren't
> squeamish about murdering wholsale anyone suspected of red sympathies,
> or benefiting from land redistribution. Fran
No way the Whites would have taken revenge on the working class. People
with Red "sympathies" would have been in trouble, but the working class was
not generally in this group. Land redistribution was another matter. A lot
of Whites thought that would be a good idea. They were united in being
opposed to the Bolsheviks, but they were as divided as were the Reds,
beyond that.
dwal...@igc.org
Empire, during the Civil War, 25% of the working class was massacered
for the perceived support they gave to the Reds. Since most workers
supported the Bolsheviks, most workers were peceived as Reds and were
subject to repression at the hands of the Whites.
Generally, the Whites shot Red prisoners of war where as the Reds
generally incarcerated their White prisoners and tried to win them
over. On the TIA there is an Order to this effect written by Trotsky.
Prior to the Order, retribution and retalitory executions seemed to be
the order of the day.
David
Bert Byfield
> Empire, during the Civil War, 25% of the working class was massacered
> for the perceived support they gave to the Reds. Since most workers
> supported the Bolsheviks, most workers were peceived as Reds and were
> subject to repression at the hands of the Whites.
You are dreaming. Both Reds and Whites were brutal to anyone they thought
was on the other side, but it had nothing to do with class. Lots of
workers wanted to be free and hated the Reds.
> Generally, the Whites shot Red prisoners of war where as the Reds
> generally incarcerated their White prisoners and tried to win them
> over.
You use the word "generally" in a silly attempt to hide the fact that you
have no clue as to the real history of this stuff. There was no brutality
gap in this war that got 50,000,000 people killed while forcing them to
become socialists.
> On the TIA there is an Order to this effect written by Trotsky.
Trotsky was very big on executing anyone thought to be a white. TIA?
Thanks in advance?
> Prior to the Order, retribution and retalitory executions seemed to be
> the order of the day. David
Accusing Trotsky of insufficient enthusiasm for the Red cause is rude of
you.
Vngelis
Hunter Watson wrote:
> FRAN wrote:
> > Hunter Watson wrote:
> > > FRAN wrote:
> > > > Bert Byfield wrote:
> > > > > > Hey, stupid, do you speak or read Russian? You ought too because little
> > > > > > if anything is available in ENGLISH by Dzerhinsky. The MIA doesn't
> > > > > > 'agree' with Lenin about him, but I certainly do.
> > > > >
> > > > > The opposite problem exists with stuff writtin in Russian: huge mounds of
> > > > > crap were written, in the thought-controlled Soviet world.
> > > > >
> > > > > > He played a very
> > > > > > valuable role during the 1918-1919 period in tracking down White
> > > > > > sympathisers and offing their sorry asses.
> > > > >
> > > > > Fran, you noting this attitude? Murdering people for their sympathies --
> > > > > it's a socialist thing.
> > > > >
> > > >
Hunter.
In a civil war people take sides. Your side would have been with
reaction, the tsars, the cossacks the black hundreds, the heirs to
Stolypin.
All those who didn't kill people because of their ideology!!
Hunter Watson
Vngelis wrote:
> Hunter Watson wrote:
> > FRAN wrote:
> > > Hunter Watson wrote:
> > > > FRAN wrote:
> > > > > Bert Byfield wrote:
> > > > > > > Hey, stupid, do you speak or read Russian? You ought too because little
> > > > > > > if anything is available in ENGLISH by Dzerhinsky. The MIA doesn't
> > > > > > > 'agree' with Lenin about him, but I certainly do.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The opposite problem exists with stuff writtin in Russian: huge mounds of
> > > > > > crap were written, in the thought-controlled Soviet world.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > He played a very
> > > > > > > valuable role during the 1918-1919 period in tracking down White
> > > > > > > sympathisers and offing their sorry asses.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Fran, you noting this attitude? Murdering people for their sympathies --
> > > > > > it's a socialist thing.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> Whilst not an American thing... tell that to the iraqui people fuckwit
> Hunter.
I didn't write a word of the material you are responding to.
> In a civil war people take sides. Your side would have been with
> reaction, the tsars, the cossacks the black hundreds, the heirs to
> Stolypin.
Sure they choose sides. But only rarely do they behave like the
Bolshevik beasts of 1917. I would certainly have supported the
Provisional Government and the Constituent Assembly. I would have
supported the creation of a democratic system in Russia. I would have
supported land reform. I would not have created a Cheka or set up
concentration camps. I would not have abrogated the Russian criminal
code and trial by jury. I would not have closed down all seven of
Petersburg's newspapers.
>
> All those who didn't kill people because of their ideology!!
The alternative was not Bolshevism or Tsarism. It was Bolshevism or
democracy. Your choice was made. It resulted in 20,000,000 civilian
victims of the regime, most of them killed in peace time.
Vngelis
Kornilov came for them and they bottled it asking for help from the
Bolsheviks to save their sorry asses. In your figure of 20million
victims of Stalin what are you trying to do the known trick of equating
stalinism with fascism. Funny how you leave your ideological
forefathers out, the Brits who on conservative estimates in a US book,
Late Victoria Holocausts were responsilbe for the death of anything
upward to 200 million during their tenure of the FAILED british
empire...
But then again selective bits of anti-communist information was always
your method. As well as pimping for the security services.
Bert Byfield
No, it was the October coup that did them in.
> Kornilov came for them and they bottled it asking for help from the
> Bolsheviks to save their sorry asses.
It was the last chance at Russian democracy, and they blew it by arming
the Bolsheviks. It was a fatal mistake.
> In your figure of 20million
> victims of Stalin what are you trying to do the known trick of equating
> stalinism with fascism.
Don't be silly. No such trick is needed. In fact, the usual figure is
30,000,000 for Stalin. It's the Civil War and the camps and the starving
of the Ukranians, so on.
> Funny how you leave your ideological
> forefathers out, the Brits who on conservative estimates in a US book,
Your source shall remain nameless? Written by some fanatic, I expect.
> Late Victoria Holocausts were responsilbe for the death of anything
> upward to 200 million during their tenure of the FAILED british
> empire...
Does this include the fantasy numbers of blacks dying while being shipped
to the US?
> But then again selective bits of anti-communist information was always
> your method. As well as pimping for the security services.
Now you are just being churlish, simply because you know your arguments
are not holding up.
Hunter Watson
Neither Germans nor Italians murdered those 20,000,000 defenseless
civilians, those citizens of the Soviet Union. They were murdered by
Bolsheviks, Leninists.
The July Days were a defeat for Lenin and understood to be such within
the Party. If the Provisional Government simply collapsed, then what
was "glorious October"? Your theory is okay with me. It just collapsed.
Haha.
The 20,000,000 includes millions from the Lenin era. Lenin created the
system Stalin used to carry out his (Lenin's) program while finishing
off the total.
That Marxism/Leninism and fascism are joined at the hip is obvious.
That is your problem, not mine. And it is a huge problem. You can not
protect Lenin's historical reputation. Dozens of MIA's could not do it.
Only totalitarians with their vast book burning projects would even
try.
That fact that crimes were committed by A, B and C is not a
justification for crimes committed by X, Y and Z. No one is calling
for restoration of the British Empire. You, however, are calling for a
restoration of regimes which overall, worldwide, murdered nearly
100,000,000 during the 20th Century. Why do you whine so bitterly that
you aren't treated with respect? What do you expect?
BTW, I understand that a rampant fungus is now growing on Lenin's mummy.
FRAN
Hunter Watson wrote:
> BTW, I understand that a rampant fungus is now growing on Lenin's mummy.
They are monitoring his mummy too?
Fran
Bert Byfield
> They are monitoring his mummy too? Fran
With a 24/7 military honor guard, in the good ole days. I guess now that
Lenin is dead, they are letting his image reflect his politics, both having
fallen into disrepute.
FRAN
Well that pun went nowhere.
Fran
Hunter Watson
You're frequently very subtle, Fran. The "they" was just too indefinite
a reference.
FRAN
I think it was "mummy" that was too subtle.
Fran
Bert Byfield
>>>>>> Lenin's mummy.
>>>>> They are monitoring his mummy too? Fran
>>>> With a 24/7 military honor guard, in the good ole days. I guess
>>>> now that Lenin is dead, they are letting his image reflect his
>>>> politics, both having fallen into disrepute.
>>> Well that pun went nowhere. Fran
>> You're frequently very subtle, Fran. The "they" was just too
>> indefinite a reference.
No pun intended. I just meant the current government.
> I think it was "mummy" that was too subtle. Fran
Nothing subtle about that. There is a real physical mummy of Lenin in
Moskva. Didn't you know? I saw it in 1985. Lenin looked better in the
coffin than he did while alive.
Billy Crystal even made a comic bit of it, pretending to be one of the
motionless guards, whispering to the next guard that "He moved!" and the
other guard whispers back "Stop it!" and then he squeezes a whoopee
cushion thing, and the other guards blame some American tourist boy for
doing it and they take the kid away, ignoring his denials.
Hunter Watson
FRAN wrote:
> Bert Byfield wrote:
> > >> Let's presume it is David. Will you respond to Bert's
> > >> point--presumably with a denunciation of the policy of murduring
> > >> people for their sympathies?
> >
> > > Of course. Opinions are not crimes, nor even is innocent association
> > > with those committing crimes, or membership of classes held to have
> > > committed crimes. Coercion of people who are innocent of crimes is a
> > > stain on the hands of those taking responsibility for the polity.
> > > Clear enough? Fran
> >
> > Very clear. You have become an anti-communist.
>
Your faction's murders will be even more systematic than Lenin's and
Stalin's? When the latters' were far more organized and strategy-driven
than those of the Whites? Isn't this atavistic, Fran?
or politically-driven physical coercion
> anyway.
But the 20,000,000 were all politically-driven killings. How will you
accomplish systematic murders without political considerations?
>
>
> Fran
FRAN
Hunter Watson wrote:
> FRAN wrote:
> > Bert Byfield wrote:
> > > >> Let's presume it is David. Will you respond to Bert's
> > > >> point--presumably with a denunciation of the policy of murduring
> > > >> people for their sympathies?
> > >
> > > > Of course. Opinions are not crimes, nor even is innocent association
> > > > with those committing crimes, or membership of classes held to have
> > > > committed crimes. Coercion of people who are innocent of crimes is a
> > > > stain on the hands of those taking responsibility for the polity.
> > > > Clear enough? Fran
> > >
> > > Very clear. You have become an anti-communist.
> >
> > Well anti-random, haphazard....
>
> Your faction's murders will be even more systematic than Lenin's and
> Stalin's?
This is becoming something like the fine print in those insurance
contracts. I don't support capital punishment, and I don't support
murder under *any* circumstances. Looking back over *your* posting
record, you can't advance the same claim without repudiating some of
what you've posted previously.
> When the latters' were far more organized and strategy-driven
> than those of the Whites?
The murders by the Whites in Omsk weren't strategy-driven?
> Isn't this atavistic, Fran?
>
> or politically-driven physical coercion
> > anyway.
>
No, this is frivolous segmentation to make a point. I oppose
"random, haphazard or politically-driven physical coercion". Thinking
about it, I suppose I'm defining politically rather more narrowly here
than I usually would. One can argue that even bona fide legislative
processes are 'political' and in so far as they are, any sanctions
involving physical coercion would be caught by my formulation -- I'm
not opposing jailing of criminals, apprehended violence orders etc. I
am opposing coercion aimed at suppressing the expression of dissident
ideas, or the criminalising of mere political or innocent association
or physical coercion not bound up with a compelling need to defend the
integrity of bona fide legal processes.
But you knew that -- or at least you *claimed* to 'know' it above.
> But the 20,000,000 were all politically-driven killings. How will you
> accomplish systematic murders without political considerations?
> >
I very much doubt it, and indeed, I doubt the numbers you keep citing
-- they sound several orders of magnitude too high, and while I don't
support even one instance of violence driven by the compelling need to
protect a legitimate interest of at least equal magnitude, it does seem
to me that what you or the originator of these figures is doing is a
variant of the big lie methodology.
But in reality, who counted up these deaths? How was each documented?
What was the causal chain linking them with the Bolsheviks?
If your claim was that in the maelstrom of events ensuing from the
overturn and Civil War many died from a multiplicity of causes that
were in good measure attributable to Lenin and the Bolsheviks,
including some that were capable of being placed under the heading "Red
Terror" by the Cheka and similar agencies, or those believing they were
acting under these auspices, then the claim *might* be plausible. I can
imagine that such a thing might well be capable of documentation. That
alone gives me pause to reflect upon the need to proceed with caution
in advocacy of revolution.
But your simple unconditional claim seems much too sweeping to be
credible, and your inclination above to be frivolous makes me wonder
whether you wouldn't accept *any* data that suited your particular
political predisposition.
Fran
FRAN
Bert Byfield wrote:
> >>>>>> BTW, I understand that a rampant fungus is now growing on
> >>>>>> Lenin's mummy.
>
> >>>>> They are monitoring his mummy too? Fran
>
> >>>> With a 24/7 military honor guard, in the good ole days. I guess
> >>>> now that Lenin is dead, they are letting his image reflect his
> >>>> politics, both having fallen into disrepute.
>
> >>> Well that pun went nowhere. Fran
>
> >> You're frequently very subtle, Fran. The "they" was just too
> >> indefinite a reference.
>
> No pun intended. I just meant the current government.
>
> > I think it was "mummy" that was too subtle. Fran
>
> Nothing subtle about that. There is a real physical mummy of Lenin in
> Moskva. Didn't you know?
I did. Lenin himself would have been appalled, and I believe we've
discussed this before.
The pun was that in AusE, "mummy" = "mommy" in AmE. I didn't believe
that Lenin's mother had a fungus growing on her corpse and that "they"
were tracking it.
Fran
Bert Byfield
> overturn and Civil War many died from a multiplicity of causes that
> were in good measure attributable to Lenin and the Bolsheviks,
> including some that were capable of being placed under the heading
> "Red Terror" by the Cheka and similar agencies, or those believing
> they were acting under these auspices, then the claim *might* be
> plausible.
This is true, but it was just the beginning. Your innocense is fetching,
Fran. But you have set yourself up as cannon fodder for Hunter, who can
do chapter and verse on where you are wrong, and hiding your head in the
sand.
> I can imagine that such a thing might well be capable of
> documentation.
You bet it is. Documentation must be ignored if you are to be a True
Believer.
> That alone gives me pause to reflect upon the need to
> proceed with caution in advocacy of revolution.
I should hope so. Geez.
> But your simple unconditional claim seems much too sweeping to be
> credible, and your inclination above to be frivolous makes me wonder
> whether you wouldn't accept *any* data that suited your particular
> political predisposition. Fran
Sure, if Hunter opposes your dream, Hunter must be nuts, right? Dreams
take precedence over reality, right?
Bert Byfield
> that Lenin's mother had a fungus growing on her corpse and that "they"
> were tracking it. Fran
Such a meaning never once occurred to me, nor I'm sure to Hunter.
FRAN
Bert Byfield wrote:
> > If your claim was that in the maelstrom of events ensuing from the
> > overturn and Civil War many died from a multiplicity of causes that
> > were in good measure attributable to Lenin and the Bolsheviks,
> > including some that were capable of being placed under the heading
> > "Red Terror" by the Cheka and similar agencies, or those believing
> > they were acting under these auspices, then the claim *might* be
> > plausible.
>
> This is true, but it was just the beginning. Your innocense is fetching,
> Fran. But you have set yourself up as cannon fodder for Hunter, who can
> do chapter and verse on where you are wrong, and hiding your head in the
> sand.
>
Can he indeed. Then lets have it. A year by year audit of morbidity and
causes and the sources of data for verification. I'd really like to
know.
> > I can imagine that such a thing might well be capable of
> > documentation.
>
> You bet it is. Documentation must be ignored if you are to be a True
> Believer.
>
Not in my case.
> > That alone gives me pause to reflect upon the need to
> > proceed with caution in advocacy of revolution.
>
> I should hope so. Geez.
>
> > But your simple unconditional claim seems much too sweeping to be
> > credible, and your inclination above to be frivolous makes me wonder
> > whether you wouldn't accept *any* data that suited your particular
> > political predisposition. Fran
>
> Sure, if Hunter opposes your dream, Hunter must be nuts, right?
No, merely himself credulous of anti-communist propaganda, or perhaps
disingenuous.
> Dreams
> take precedence over reality, right?
Never. One needs to be able to distinguish the two and it's not merely
our side that falls victim to that you know.
Fran
Hunter Watson
> Hunter Watson wrote:
> > FRAN wrote:
> > > Bert Byfield wrote:
> > > > >> Let's presume it is David. Will you respond to Bert's
> > > > >> point--presumably with a denunciation of the policy of murduring
> > > > >> people for their sympathies?
> > > >
> > > > > Of course. Opinions are not crimes, nor even is innocent association
> > > > > with those committing crimes, or membership of classes held to have
> > > > > committed crimes. Coercion of people who are innocent of crimes is a
> > > > > stain on the hands of those taking responsibility for the polity.
> > > > > Clear enough? Fran
> > > >
> > > > Very clear. You have become an anti-communist.
> > >
> > > Well anti-random, haphazard....
> >
> > Your faction's murders will be even more systematic than Lenin's and
> > Stalin's?
>
> This is becoming something like the fine print in those insurance
> contracts. I don't support capital punishment, and I don't support
> murder under *any* circumstances. Looking back over *your* posting
> record, you can't advance the same claim without repudiating some of
> what you've posted previously.
Of course I don't recall such a lapse in good judgment. Don't hesitate
to remind us.
>
> > When the latters' were far more organized and strategy-driven
> > than those of the Whites?
>
> The murders by the Whites in Omsk weren't strategy-driven?
Face it, Fran. The Bolshevik oppression was driven from the center. By
and large that wasn't true of the Whites.
>
> > Isn't this atavistic, Fran?
> >
> > or politically-driven physical coercion
> > > anyway.
> >
>
> No, this is frivolous segmentation to make a point. I oppose
>
> "random, haphazard or politically-driven physical coercion". Thinking
> about it, I suppose I'm defining politically rather more narrowly here
> than I usually would. One can argue that even bona fide legislative
> processes are 'political' and in so far as they are, any sanctions
> involving physical coercion would be caught by my formulation -- I'm
> not opposing jailing of criminals, apprehended violence orders etc. I
> am opposing coercion aimed at suppressing the expression of dissident
> ideas, or the criminalising of mere political or innocent association
> or physical coercion not bound up with a compelling need to defend the
> integrity of bona fide legal processes.
Okay, so you reject and condemn most of the killing done by Lenin and
Trotsky through the death of the former?
>
>
> But you knew that -- or at least you *claimed* to 'know' it above.
>
>
> > But the 20,000,000 were all politically-driven killings. How will you
> > accomplish systematic murders without political considerations?
> > >
>
> I very much doubt it, and indeed, I doubt the numbers you keep citing
> -- they sound several orders of magnitude too high, and while I don't
> support even one instance of violence driven by the compelling need to
> protect a legitimate interest of at least equal magnitude, it does seem
> to me that what you or the originator of these figures is doing is a
> variant of the big lie methodology.
The Black Book utilizes the "big lie" methodology?
>
> But in reality, who counted up these deaths? How was each documented?
> What was the causal chain linking them with the Bolsheviks?
The Bolsheviks were in power and therefore responsible from 1917 to
1991.
I had the impression you had done the reading, e.g., Werth, Conquest,
Applebaum, Malia, Laqueur, Bacon, Pavel Polyan, Otto Pohl. Perhaps you
would like Applebaum's "How Many" chapter at the end of "Gulag, a
History". She cites the Black Book authors' estimate of 20,000,000, and
Bacon's 18,000,000 but after reciting the horrendous component figures
available to scholars along with the uncertainties involved declines to
come to her own estimate.
>
> If your claim was that in the maelstrom of events ensuing from the
> overturn and Civil War many died from a multiplicity of causes that
> were in good measure attributable to Lenin and the Bolsheviks,
> including some that were capable of being placed under the heading "Red
> Terror" by the Cheka and similar agencies, or those believing they were
> acting under these auspices, then the claim *might* be plausible. I can
> imagine that such a thing might well be capable of documentation. That
> alone gives me pause to reflect upon the need to proceed with caution
> in advocacy of revolution.
>
> But your simple unconditional claim seems much too sweeping to be
> credible, and your inclination above to be frivolous makes me wonder
> whether you wouldn't accept *any* data that suited your particular
> political predisposition.
They are all estimates, based now on partial archive information. I am
content to rely on the 20,000,000 figure coming from Black Book written
by French socialists. Some estimates of deaths go as low as ten or
twelve million. Some early ones are over 60,000,000 and still retain
some persuasive power. My impresson is that 20,000,000 is very
conservative. We will never know the precise number. Nor will we be
able to track every death with certainty regarding causal factors. Nor
does it matter that it can't be done regardless of how satisfying that
would be. For you to call for such precision is unrealistic. If you had
done the reading you would know it and simply choose among the
estimates. Bacon's figure, for example, is 18 million. But there were
over 28 million forced labourers in Russia from 1930 to 1953 alone.
There were over 6 million "special exiles". No matter what number you
adopt it will not change the moral judgment which must be rendered on
the system. Ten million, twenty million, sixty million---the judgment
must be the same.
>
> Fran
FRAN
Hunter Watson wrote:
> FRAN wrote:
> > Hunter Watson wrote:
> > > FRAN wrote:
> > > > Bert Byfield wrote:
> > > > > >> Let's presume it is David. Will you respond to Bert's
> > > > > >> point--presumably with a denunciation of the policy of murduring
> > > > > >> people for their sympathies?
> > > > >
> > > > > > Of course. Opinions are not crimes, nor even is innocent association
> > > > > > with those committing crimes, or membership of classes held to have
> > > > > > committed crimes. Coercion of people who are innocent of crimes is a
> > > > > > stain on the hands of those taking responsibility for the polity.
> > > > > > Clear enough? Fran
> > > > >
> > > > > Very clear. You have become an anti-communist.
> > > >
> > > > Well anti-random, haphazard....
> > >
> > > Your faction's murders will be even more systematic than Lenin's and
> > > Stalin's?
> >
> > This is becoming something like the fine print in those insurance
> > contracts. I don't support capital punishment, and I don't support
> > murder under *any* circumstances. Looking back over *your* posting
> > record, you can't advance the same claim without repudiating some of
> > what you've posted previously.
>
> Of course I don't recall such a lapse in good judgment. Don't hesitate
> to remind us.
>
Well wasn't it you saying Lenin ought to have been shot in early 1917?
> >
> > > When the latters' were far more organized and strategy-driven
> > > than those of the Whites?
> >
> > The murders by the Whites in Omsk weren't strategy-driven?
>
> Face it, Fran. The Bolshevik oppression was driven from the center. By
> and large that wasn't true of the Whites.
>
That's only arguable because they operated as separate groups, but
killing off red sympathisers, or those alleged to be such, was common.
>
> >
> > > Isn't this atavistic, Fran?
> > >
> > > or politically-driven physical coercion
> > > > anyway.
> > >
> >
> > No, this is frivolous segmentation to make a point. I oppose
> >
> > "random, haphazard or politically-driven physical coercion". Thinking
> > about it, I suppose I'm defining politically rather more narrowly here
> > than I usually would. One can argue that even bona fide legislative
> > processes are 'political' and in so far as they are, any sanctions
> > involving physical coercion would be caught by my formulation -- I'm
> > not opposing jailing of criminals, apprehended violence orders etc. I
> > am opposing coercion aimed at suppressing the expression of dissident
> > ideas, or the criminalising of mere political or innocent association
> > or physical coercion not bound up with a compelling need to defend the
> > integrity of bona fide legal processes.
>
> Okay, so you reject and condemn most of the killing done by Lenin and
> Trotsky through the death of the former?
>
I condemn any purely partisan murders. Those not committing acts that
would not normally be recognised as crimes ought not to be harassed.
Taking of hostages amongst evident non-combatants/participants is also
indefencible. The Romanovs may have been a special case, though even
here I'm not convinced.
>
> >
> >
> > But you knew that -- or at least you *claimed* to 'know' it above.
> >
> >
> > > But the 20,000,000 were all politically-driven killings. How will you
> > > accomplish systematic murders without political considerations?
> > > >
> >
> > I very much doubt it, and indeed, I doubt the numbers you keep citing
> > -- they sound several orders of magnitude too high, and while I don't
> > support even one instance of violence driven by the compelling need to
> > protect a legitimate interest of at least equal magnitude, it does seem
> > to me that what you or the originator of these figures is doing is a
> > variant of the big lie methodology.
>
> The Black Book utilizes the "big lie" methodology?
> >
Why not?
> > But in reality, who counted up these deaths? How was each documented?
> > What was the causal chain linking them with the Bolsheviks?
>
> The Bolsheviks were in power and therefore responsible from 1917 to
> 1991.
>
Bolshevism was effectively at an end in about 1923, but certainly by
the time Stalin siezed power. It's your contention that Lenin led to
Stalin, and I'm not entirely unsympathetic to the view that the events
of 1917-1922 predisposed the result, although other factors were also
indispensible, but the claim as it stands above too big a stretch.
> I had the impression you had done the reading, e.g., Werth, Conquest,
> Applebaum, Malia, Laqueur, Bacon, Pavel Polyan, Otto Pohl. Perhaps you
> would like Applebaum's "How Many" chapter at the end of "Gulag, a
> History". She cites the Black Book authors' estimate of 20,000,000, and
> Bacon's 18,000,000 but after reciting the horrendous component figures
> available to scholars along with the uncertainties involved declines to
> come to her own estimate.
>
And this is what the "scholars" have largely done -- come up with
guesstimates and back-of-the-envelope figures. That may be adequate if
you are merely attaching broad culpability for consequences of policy,
but is hardly adequate if you are going to allege mass murder.
How many died between November 1917 and January 1924? And how?
Fran
Bert Byfield
>> am content to rely on the 20,000,000 figure coming from Black Book
>> written by French socialists. Some estimates of deaths go as low as
>> ten or twelve million. Some early ones are over 60,000,000 and still
>> retain some persuasive power. My impresson is that 20,000,000 is very
>> conservative. We will never know the precise number. Nor will we be
>> able to track every death with certainty regarding causal factors.
>> Nor does it matter that it can't be done regardless of how satisfying
>> that would be. For you to call for such precision is unrealistic. If
>> you had done the reading you would know it and simply choose among
>> the estimates. Bacon's figure, for example, is 18 million. But there
>> were over 28 million forced labourers in Russia from 1930 to 1953
>> alone. There were over 6 million "special exiles". No matter what
>> number you adopt it will not change the moral judgment which must be
>> rendered on the system. Ten million, twenty million, sixty
>> million---the judgment must be the same.
> How many died between November 1917 and January 1924? And how?
> Fran
Why do you refuse to read history books yourself? I'm sure Hunter will do
your research for you, but I am puzzled that you are content to let a
liberal Democrat do your socialist reading for you.
FRAN
Oh I'm familiar with a number of the sources quoted by Hunter. I just
don't think them all that impressively documented. I know you have this
animus towards socialists, but I'd hardly count Lacquer as "socialist"
reading.
Fran
Hunter Watson
Perhaps I said that had he been shot as a traitor in that period it
would probably have saved millions of lives. You know I oppose the
death penalty.
>
> > >
> > > > When the latters' were far more organized and strategy-driven
> > > > than those of the Whites?
> > >
> > > The murders by the Whites in Omsk weren't strategy-driven?
> >
> > Face it, Fran. The Bolshevik oppression was driven from the center. By
> > and large that wasn't true of the Whites.
> >
>
> That's only arguable because they operated as separate groups, but
> killing off red sympathisers, or those alleged to be such, was common.
Both sides committed atrocities. But their behaviour was not equivalent
in either methodology or the volume of such crimes. Have you read W.
Bruce Lincoln's "Red VIctory"? It's the best single volume history of
the Russian civil war, a fine alternative to your hopeful memories of
all those Leninist allegations about the history of that conflict.
Lincoln is a fine professional historian with no perceptible axe to
grind. He writes beautifully. Don't just pick about in it. Read it
through. Any university library will have it. It is in print in
paperback.
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > > Isn't this atavistic, Fran?
> > > >
> > > > or politically-driven physical coercion
> > > > > anyway.
> > > >
> > >
> > > No, this is frivolous segmentation to make a point. I oppose
> > >
> > > "random, haphazard or politically-driven physical coercion". Thinking
> > > about it, I suppose I'm defining politically rather more narrowly here
> > > than I usually would. One can argue that even bona fide legislative
> > > processes are 'political' and in so far as they are, any sanctions
> > > involving physical coercion would be caught by my formulation -- I'm
> > > not opposing jailing of criminals, apprehended violence orders etc. I
> > > am opposing coercion aimed at suppressing the expression of dissident
> > > ideas, or the criminalising of mere political or innocent association
> > > or physical coercion not bound up with a compelling need to defend the
> > > integrity of bona fide legal processes.
> >
>
>
>
> > Okay, so you reject and condemn most of the killing done by Lenin and
> > Trotsky through the death of the former?
> >
>
> I condemn any purely partisan murders.
But that's what most of them were, obviously. What a terrible task it
would be to make out a credible denial of it.
Those not committing acts that
> would not normally be recognised as crimes ought not to be harassed.
> Taking of hostages amongst evident non-combatants/participants is also
> indefencible. The Romanovs may have been a special case, though even
> here I'm not convinced.
The taking of hostages is absolutely barbaric and I condemn it
absolutely. I call upon you to do the same.
I condemn all murders without any exception whatever. You can't quite
bring yourself to agree. Your views seem more liberal than David's for
example but you don't quite leave the "off their sorry asses" camp. Is
that because of your love of Leninism?
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > But you knew that -- or at least you *claimed* to 'know' it above.
> > >
> > >
> > > > But the 20,000,000 were all politically-driven killings. How will you
> > > > accomplish systematic murders without political considerations?
> > > > >
> > >
> > > I very much doubt it, and indeed, I doubt the numbers you keep citing
> > > -- they sound several orders of magnitude too high, and while I don't
> > > support even one instance of violence driven by the compelling need to
> > > protect a legitimate interest of at least equal magnitude, it does seem
> > > to me that what you or the originator of these figures is doing is a
> > > variant of the big lie methodology.
> >
> > The Black Book utilizes the "big lie" methodology?
> > >
>
> Why not?
The Black Book is out there for you to read. It's your burden to
demonstrate that it utilizes the big lie. The ball is in your court.
Neither the authors nor I can legitimately be called upon to prove a
negative. We wouldn't know where to begin. Logically you are required
to have some reason for your view.It's up to you to make the argument.
It's a mainstream academic work and has already been peer reviewed in
the journals.
>
> > > But in reality, who counted up these deaths? How was each documented?
> > > What was the causal chain linking them with the Bolsheviks?
> >
> > The Bolsheviks were in power and therefore responsible from 1917 to
> > 1991.
> >
>
> Bolshevism was effectively at an end in about 1923, but certainly by
> the time Stalin siezed power.
Very revealing, a last ditch defense. Do you argue that Lenin *was*
Bolshevism, i.e., in the sense that it could not and therefore did not
survive his illness? Or, perhaps, that some sort of accident took place
which permitted a psychopath to hijack the revolution and deflect what
would otherwise have been the logic of history? If so you are wrong on
either count.
"There is no doubt that Stalin displayed symptons of clinical paranoia,
megalomania, and sadism; this was later confirmed by some of his
closest associates. Yet it must be borne in mind that he had succeeded
Lenin not by a coup d'etat but step by step, promoted by the party
itself. He was its choice. Historians who maintain that Lenin's mantle
should have fallen either on Trotsky or Bukharin ignore the fact that
though he admired both these men, Lenin did not consider them suitable
successors. The despotic powers that Stalin exercised were put in place
by Lenin. It was Lenin who introduced mass terror with hostage taking
and concentration camps, who viewed law and courts as 'substantiating
and legitimizing' terror, who authorized Articles 57 and 58 of the
Criminal Code, omnibus clauses that Stalin used to execute and imprison
millions of innocent citizens. And it was Lenin who had the party pass
a resolution outlawing 'factions' which enabled Stalin to dispose of
anyone who disagreed with him as a 'deviationist.' Personal
dictatorship was inherent in the system that Lenin created, even though
he himself perferred to operate in a more collegial manner. From 'The
party is always right' it was an easy transition to 'The leader of the
party is always right.' And once this principle was accepted, how the
autocratic leadership would be exercised was a matter of chance.
"Vyacheslav Molotov served both Lenin and Stalin in highly confidential
posts longer than any other Bolshevik. When asked in his old age who of
the two was the more 'severe,' he replied without hesitation, 'Lenin,
of course...I recall how he scolded Stalin for softness and
liberalism.' Which should dispose of the myth, popularized first by
Trotsky and then by Khruschev, that Stalinism meant a repudiation of
Leninism." (Pipes, "Communism, a History", Modern Library, pp. 73-74)
It's your contention that Lenin led to
> Stalin, and I'm not entirely unsympathetic to the view that the events
> of 1917-1922 predisposed the result, although other factors were also
> indispensible, but the claim as it stands above too big a stretch.
I've put the facts and argument before you above. I can add a lot to it
myself. It's too sketchy as it is. Perhaps if you would nevertheless
deal with them in detail?
>
>
> > I had the impression you had done the reading, e.g., Werth, Conquest,
> > Applebaum, Malia, Laqueur, Bacon, Pavel Polyan, Otto Pohl. Perhaps you
> > would like Applebaum's "How Many" chapter at the end of "Gulag, a
> > History". She cites the Black Book authors' estimate of 20,000,000, and
> > Bacon's 18,000,000 but after reciting the horrendous component figures
> > available to scholars along with the uncertainties involved declines to
> > come to her own estimate.
> >
>
> And this is what the "scholars" have largely done -- come up with
> guesstimates and back-of-the-envelope figures.
The 'guesstimates' assertion is wrong. Since 1991 a lot of statistical
material has been coming out of the of the former Soviet archives. The
question has been how to interpret it. Anne Applebaum agrees with me
that the best summary to date of the debate among scholars is found in
Bacon, Edwin, 'The Gulag at War', London, 1994, pp. 6-41 and 101-22.
His figure is 18 million, based on turnover rates and available
statistics.
That may be adequate if
> you are merely attaching broad culpability for consequences of policy,
> but is hardly adequate if you are going to allege mass murder.
There was mass murder by shooting, certainly. But turn to the Gulag and
your "consequences of policy" comment. The vast bulk of the prisoners
were guilty of nothing. There were nearly 30 million of them between
1930 and 1953. The conditions in the camps were dictated with *great
precision* from the center. It did it with full experience of the
consequences which would ensue. That brutality, lack of medical care,
starvation and mass executions were commonplace is too well documented
to be denied by anyone with an open mind. The memoir literature is
immense. There are seventeen main first person accounts of the Kolyma
camps alone. "To Russians, the word Kolyma rivals in every sense the
evocative horror of Auschwitz..." (From the Editors of "Kolyma, the
Arctic Death Camps" by Robert Conquest) Among them are the two volumes
written by Evgeniya Ginzburg, Journey into the Whirlwind [Krutoi
marshrut] and Within the Whirlwind [Krutoi marshrut, Part II], New
York, 1967, and London, 1981, respectively. The historical fiction,
based on unimpeachable personal experience such as that of Varlam
Shalamov ("Kolyma Tales," London, 1994") will change you forever. But,
of course, you will have to have the courage to read it. I mention
courage only because reading it will go to the heart of your faith.
>
>
> > >
> > > If your claim was that in the maelstrom of events ensuing from the
> > > overturn and Civil War many died from a multiplicity of causes that
> > > were in good measure attributable to Lenin and the Bolsheviks,
> > > including some that were capable of being placed under the heading "Red
> > > Terror" by the Cheka and similar agencies, or those believing they were
> > > acting under these auspices, then the claim *might* be plausible. I can
> > > imagine that such a thing might well be capable of documentation. That
> > > alone gives me pause to reflect upon the need to proceed with caution
> > > in advocacy of revolution.
Lincoln, W. Bruce, "Red Victory" Read it through and follow it up with
"Into the Whirlwind" and "Within the Whirlwind" by Ginzberg. They are
the tip of the iceberg.
> > >
> > > But your simple unconditional claim seems much too sweeping to be
> > > credible, and your inclination above to be frivolous makes me wonder
> > > whether you wouldn't accept *any* data that suited your particular
> > > political predisposition.
> >
> > They are all estimates, based now on partial archive information. I am
> > content to rely on the 20,000,000 figure coming from Black Book written
> > by French socialists. Some estimates of deaths go as low as ten or
> > twelve million. Some early ones are over 60,000,000 and still retain
> > some persuasive power. My impresson is that 20,000,000 is very
> > conservative. We will never know the precise number. Nor will we be
> > able to track every death with certainty regarding causal factors. Nor
> > does it matter that it can't be done regardless of how satisfying that
> > would be. For you to call for such precision is unrealistic. If you had
> > done the reading you would know it and simply choose among the
> > estimates. Bacon's figure, for example, is 18 million. But there were
> > over 28 million forced labourers in Russia from 1930 to 1953 alone.
> > There were over 6 million "special exiles". No matter what number you
> > adopt it will not change the moral judgment which must be rendered on
> > the system. Ten million, twenty million, sixty million---the judgment
> > must be the same.
>
> How many died between November 1917 and January 1924? And how?
Millions, Fran. Mostly poor people. It was ghastly. I know you shrink
from Professor Pipes because your colleagues on the Left hate him. But
read his "War against the Village" chapter in Russia under the
Bolshevik Regime. He is despised by the Left but they have undermined
no significant aspect of this seminal work as history.
Best,
Hunter
>
> Fran
A. G. Phillbin
<coaste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>
^I had the impression you had done the reading, e.g., Werth, Conquest,
^Applebaum, Malia, Laqueur, Bacon, Pavel Polyan, Otto Pohl. Perhaps you
^would like Applebaum's "How Many" chapter at the end of "Gulag, a
^History". She cites the Black Book authors' estimate of 20,000,000, and
^Bacon's 18,000,000 but after reciting the horrendous component figures
^available to scholars along with the uncertainties involved declines to
^come to her own estimate.
^
<snip>
Perhaps you are unaware of the controversy that two of the authors of
the Black Book had with their editor. These were the authors of the
two key chapters on the USSR and China. Specifically, they accused
their editor (who edited all the chapters in the book) of having an a
priori desire to come up with a figure of 100 million, and having
misused their statistics in order to arrive at that conclusion,
through selective editing. I would be especially cautious of the
Chinese estimates, since unlike the USSR, there are no archives to
study. Don't forget, you were sucked in by Rudy Rummel's 60+ million
figure, until I pointed out the sheer absurdity of it, and his playing
fst and loose with categories of deaths. I believe another poster, J.
Otto Pohl pointed out some of the same problems, in addition to
Rummel's specious use of "demographic losses." Now, none of this
excuses crimes committed by the Bolsheviks, but your credulity in this
regard is well documented.
By the way, Prof. Rummel has quit the libertrians and now calls
himself a "freedomist," and supports the war in Iraq as a means of
spreading "freedom."
Hunter Watson
A. G. Phillbin wrote:
> On 13 Jan 2006 21:02:02 -0800, "Hunter Watson"
> <coaste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> ^I had the impression you had done the reading, e.g., Werth, Conquest,
> ^Applebaum, Malia, Laqueur, Bacon, Pavel Polyan, Otto Pohl. Perhaps you
> ^would like Applebaum's "How Many" chapter at the end of "Gulag, a
> ^History". She cites the Black Book authors' estimate of 20,000,000, and
> ^Bacon's 18,000,000 but after reciting the horrendous component figures
> ^available to scholars along with the uncertainties involved declines to
> ^come to her own estimate.
> ^
> <snip>
>
> Perhaps you are unaware of the controversy that two of the authors of
> the Black Book had with their editor. These were the authors of the
> two key chapters on the USSR and China. Specifically, they accused
> their editor (who edited all the chapters in the book) of having an a
> priori desire to come up with a figure of 100 million, and having
> misused their statistics in order to arrive at that conclusion,
> through selective editing.
The controversy was thoroughly aired at the time of publication. The
book as finally published came in at near but under 100,000,000. I
don't know if that settled the controversy, A.G., but will you settle
for 90,000,000? Haha.
I would be especially cautious of the
> Chinese estimates, since unlike the USSR, there are no archives to
> study.
Thank you, A.G., for confirming that in the USSR there are such
archives to study.
Don't forget, you were sucked in by Rudy Rummel's 60+ million
> figure, until I pointed out the sheer absurdity of it, and his playing
> fst and loose with categories of deaths.
He didn't play fast and loose with anything. His book was written in @
1986, five years before the archives opened up, and used the sources
which were available at the time. Much of it was anecdotal of course.
His estimate was very close to Solzhenitsyn's if you recall. It was
also close to the Soviet demographers who had done studies of the
available population figures.
I still like Rudy's numbers based on demographic changes associated
with the periods of greatest carnage. As I told you at the time I don't
trust NKVD willingness to correctly document all the system's deaths.
But I'm perfectly willing to accept the new scholarly analyses of
Soviet government figures for purposes of these conversations. Such
conservatism avoids cavils such as yours. You are now in a position of
having to say, "none of this excuses crimes committed by the
Bolsheviks."
I believe another poster, J.
> Otto Pohl pointed out some of the same problems, in addition to
> Rummel's specious use of "demographic losses." Now, none of this
> excuses crimes committed by the Bolsheviks, but your credulity in this
> regard is well documented.
Pohl's interests were in the assessing the crimes of Soviet authorities
perpetrated against the national minorities. He disclaimed knowledge of
the pre-Stain era. His estimate of the "special deportees" (Kazakhs,
Volga Germans, Chechens, etc. is something like 6,000,000. Imagine
that, 6,000,000! By the way, he is cited by Applebaum as a source.
At the same time you will recall my argument was that regardless of the
numbers one chooses to adopt they are all so high that the judgment of
the regime remains the same. And that was Professor Rummel's point. The
difference between 20,000,000 and 60,000,000 changes nothing.
>
> By the way, Prof. Rummel has quit the libertrians and now calls
> himself a "freedomist," and supports the war in Iraq as a means of
> spreading "freedom."
As you know, I don't support the war, nor have I ever been a
libertarian.
I commend Professor Rummel's web site to everyone here. He spent a life
time studying the behavior of totalitarian regimes.
Hunter Watson
He's no socialist but his "The Dream that Failed" written in about 1994
should be required reading. It's a fresh take on many of the problems
of "Sovietology" over the past half century. In essence it's an
analysis of where the profession went wrong and why. From the history
side it is the equivalent of the sociologist Paul Hollander's
"Political Pilgrims."
Bert Byfield
>>> Fran
>> Why do you refuse to read history books yourself? I'm sure Hunter
>> will do your research for you, but I am puzzled that you are content
>> to let a liberal Democrat do your socialist reading for you.
> Oh I'm familiar with a number of the sources quoted by Hunter. I just
> don't think them all that impressively documented. I know you have
> this animus towards socialists, but I'd hardly count Lacquer as
> "socialist" reading. Fran
So you can judge something like: 15 million is good, but 16 million is
bad???!!!
FRAN
If you review my comments in the thread, you'll see that's not my
argument.
Fran
Hunter Watson
Whatever your argument is it is certainly tentative, driven it seems as
much by nostalgia as anything. I think you know better in the rational
sense.
>
> Fran
Hunter Watson
Were you to respond to my reply to you on the 14th you could come to
grips with the history.
>
> Fran
FRAN
You seemed to think it clear enough above when I said:
"Opinions are not crimes, nor even is innocent association
with those committing crimes, or membership of classes held to have
committed crimes. Coercion of people who are innocent of crimes is a
stain on the hands of those taking responsibility for the polity.
Clear enough?"
and you responded ...
"Elegantly stated, but it comes from you about whom I've had no
doubts."
Later, on the 14th, I added ...
"I condemn any purely partisan murders. Those not committing acts that
would not normally be recognised as crimes ought not to be harassed.
Taking of hostages amongst evident non-combatants/participants is also
indefencible. The Romanovs may have been a special case, though even
here I'm not convinced."
That's not tentative or 'nostalgic'. As to the Romanovs, it seemed to
me that they *might* have been regarded as participants, given that
they could have been used as figureheads for a rival state, though
finally I concluded that even in that case, I wasn't convinced that s a
strong general case for using them as hostages could be made out.
Perhaps, if a military unit of the Red Army had found itself
embarrassed by the advance of White forces, then trading the escape of
the unit for the Romanovs' release might have been defencible. And
although (assuming a case could be made out for them being seen as
participants/combatants) I'd have favoured treating them in the interim
as POWs and strictly according to current Geneva Convention principles,
I'd probably not have ojected to the other isde getting the impression
that we were unable to guarantee their good treatment as this would
have strengthened the bargaining position of the embarrassed Red Army
unit.
Fran
Hunter Watson
Yes, that was clear enough.
>
>
> Later, on the 14th, I added ...
>
> "I condemn any purely partisan murders.
Yes, and this troubled me. You slice murders like a sausage. I abhor
them all. You can't bring yourself to agree.
Those not committing acts that
> would not normally be recognised as crimes ought not to be harassed.
Yet you would not have us harrass Lenin and Trotsky who committed these
"normally recognized crimes" in large numbers and from the very first
days of the revolution.
> Taking of hostages amongst evident non-combatants/participants is also
> indefencible. The Romanovs may have been a special case, though even
> here I'm not convinced."
More sausage slicing. Taking hostages from alleged
combatants/partcipants is also indefencible. Hostage taking is
indefencible, period.
>
>
> That's not tentative or 'nostalgic'.
Sure it is. It is an effort to defend the reputation of Lenin by
condoning his acts and leaving what you would describe as matters of
selective discretion up to him.
As to the Romanovs, it seemed to
> me that they *might* have been regarded as participants, given that
> they could have been used as figureheads for a rival state, though
> finally I concluded that even in that case, I wasn't convinced that s a
> strong general case for using them as hostages could be made out.
That's kind of you but they weren't even used as hostages. They were
flat-out murdered. Women, children, servants and all. Then, later, the
man who organized the crimes was made into a Bolshevik hero and his
pistol was put in a museum of the "revolution" for generations of
Russian children to marvel at while absorbing exactly the wrong
principles.
> Perhaps, if a military unit of the Red Army had found itself
> embarrassed by the advance of White forces, then trading the escape of
> the unit for the Romanovs' release might have been defencible.
You know better. You make exceptions and you open the floodgates.
That's exactly what happened in the case of the Bolsheviks. It was a
failure of moral standards which took Russia back to the 13th Century.
And
> although (assuming a case could be made out for them being seen as
> participants/combatants) I'd have favoured treating them in the interim
> as POWs and strictly according to current Geneva Convention principles,
> I'd probably not have ojected to the other isde getting the impression
> that we were unable to guarantee their good treatment as this would
> have strengthened the bargaining position of the embarrassed Red Army
> unit.
Oh, that wonderfully proud and principled "Red" Army unit! Stern and
hard but with hearts of gold focused selflessly on the proletarian
cause, fulfilling history's call. But for having been called to the
colors they could all have been Chekists! GIve us a few hard men!.
FRAN
I do agree. I do condemn them all. That I threw in "purely partisan"
was an essentially superfluous addition.
> Those not committing acts that
> > would not normally be recognised as crimes ought not to be harassed.
>
> Yet you would not have us harrass Lenin and Trotsky who committed these
> "normally recognized crimes" in large numbers and from the very first
> days of the revolution.
>
Not at all. In a setting where law and order was meaningful, any
official of state ought to be subject to the reach of due process. My
observation was intended to distinguish those who were guilty of crimes
against the public order in a time of civil conflict and shortage from
those who were mere family members and acquaintances of the same, or
who may have been comparatively priviliged prior to the Bolshevik
Revolution and the subject of some animus, or who may have done no more
than express political hostility to the new regime and all of whom
ought not to be harassed.
>
> > Taking of hostages amongst evident non-combatants/participants is also
> > indefencible. The Romanovs may have been a special case, though even
> > here I'm not convinced."
>
> More sausage slicing. Taking hostages from alleged
> combatants/partcipants is also indefencible.
It all turns on the "alleged". Enemy soldiers and enemy spies are
traded by states all the time. If it's legitimate to hold a POW in
military conflict its OK to make him a tradeable commodity. Of course,
if the person is a non-participant then this is not defencible. The
problem was that the Bolshevik Government took hostages from amongst
the relatives of people it wished to conscript into military or other
service -- and that is clearly wrong.
> Hostage taking is
> indefencible, period.
>
No it isn't, provided:
a) Those in question are clearly combatants/participants in the
conflict of their own volition
b) They are treated with humanity
> >
> >
> > That's not tentative or 'nostalgic'.
>
> Sure it is. It is an effort to defend the reputation of Lenin by
> condoning his acts and leaving what you would describe as matters of
> selective discretion up to him.
>
Not at all. I have no stake in the reputation of Lenin or Trotsky for
that matter. I condemn a number of things they have both done and not
done. They made serious errors of judgement with disastrous and lethal
consequences. I think it likely that they simply blundered into a
position where they had few good options, but they ought to have known
better, and clearly were responsible for much of the horror that
ensued.
On the other hand, had they acted as I'd have preferred, it's certainly
possible, and IMO probable that a different horror of at least equal
magnitude would have ensued, as in 1917, there were few good options
and only a very rough chance of an outcome that left humanity standing
better. At the time, they gambled on what seemed to them the better
course, scarcely grasping what lay ahead. I have the benefit of
hindsight.
> As to the Romanovs, it seemed to
> > me that they *might* have been regarded as participants, given that
> > they could have been used as figureheads for a rival state, though
> > finally I concluded that even in that case, I wasn't convinced that s a
> > strong general case for using them as hostages could be made out.
>
> That's kind of you but they weren't even used as hostages.
Exactly so. And that was amongst the things they got wrong -- although
as I understand it, the decision to execute them was taken locally in a
context in which theyre was some prosect of them falling into White
hands. That doesn't make it defencible, IMO, but it is comprehensible
as one of those judgements that reflected the animus towards the ancien
regime, which had after all, a lot of blood on its hands.
> They were
> flat-out murdered. Women, children, servants and all. Then, later, the
> man who organized the crimes was made into a Bolshevik hero and his
> pistol was put in a museum of the "revolution" for generations of
> Russian children to marvel at while absorbing exactly the wrong
> principles.
>
Awful
> > Perhaps, if a military unit of the Red Army had found itself
> > embarrassed by the advance of White forces, then trading the escape of
> > the unit for the Romanovs' release might have been defencible.
>
> You know better. You make exceptions and you open the floodgates.
Tell me Hunter. Your platoon seizes enemy soldiers, including an
officer but finds itself encircled. You lack the resources to make good
your escape and apply the principles of POW care to them while
preventing them from giving away your attempted means of flight.
Do you
a) Shoot them?
b) use them as bargaining chips?
c) abandon them knowing that they will assist your pursuers?
.
I think b) would be OK here, if feasible.
Fran
Bert Byfield
> that matter. I condemn a number of things they have both done and not
> done. They made serious errors of judgement with disastrous and lethal
> consequences. I think it likely that they simply blundered into a
> position where they had few good options, but they ought to have known
> better, and clearly were responsible for much of the horror that
> ensued.
"Oops! Thirty million people murdered! We must remember to be more
careful next time!"
> On the other hand, had they acted as I'd have preferred, it's
> certainly possible, and IMO probable that a different horror of at
> least equal magnitude would have ensued, as in 1917, there were few
> good options and only a very rough chance of an outcome that left
> humanity standing better. At the time, they gambled on what seemed to
> them the better course, scarcely grasping what lay ahead. I have the
> benefit of hindsight.
You are trying ever so hard to have your cake and eat it too. You want to
be against murder, yet you make excuses for your heroes when they are
murderers. It won't wash.
> Exactly so. And that was amongst the things they got wrong -- although
> as I understand it, the decision to execute them was taken locally in
> a context in which theyre was some prosect of them falling into White
> hands.
That part was a lie. Lenin just wanted them dead, for executing his
brother, and the rest was smoke and mirrors.
>> They were
>> flat-out murdered. Women, children, servants and all. Then, later,
>> the man who organized the crimes was made into a Bolshevik hero and
>> his pistol was put in a museum of the "revolution" for generations of
>> Russian children to marvel at while absorbing exactly the wrong
>> principles.
> Awful
Being on the side of the murderers means you are not entitled to say
"awful." You are sitting desperately on the fence, refusing to pick a
side to come down on.
FRAN
Bert Byfield wrote:
> > Not at all. I have no stake in the reputation of Lenin or Trotsky for
> > that matter. I condemn a number of things they have both done and not
> > done. They made serious errors of judgement with disastrous and lethal
> > consequences. I think it likely that they simply blundered into a
> > position where they had few good options, but they ought to have known
> > better, and clearly were responsible for much of the horror that
> > ensued.
>
> "Oops! Thirty million people murdered! We must remember to be more
> careful next time!"
>
> > On the other hand, had they acted as I'd have preferred, it's
> > certainly possible, and IMO probable that a different horror of at
> > least equal magnitude would have ensued, as in 1917, there were few
> > good options and only a very rough chance of an outcome that left
> > humanity standing better. At the time, they gambled on what seemed to
> > them the better course, scarcely grasping what lay ahead. I have the
> > benefit of hindsight.
>
> You are trying ever so hard to have your cake and eat it too. You want to
> be against murder, yet you make excuses for your heroes when they are
> murderers. It won't wash.
>
It's not an apologia. It's a simple statement of how matters
transpired. And as I said they were in any event "clearly ...
responsible for much of the horror that ensued".
> > Exactly so. And that was amongst the things they got wrong -- although
> > as I understand it, the decision to execute them was taken locally in
> > a context in which theyre was some prosect of them falling into White
> > hands.
>
> That part was a lie. Lenin just wanted them dead, for executing his
> brother, and the rest was smoke and mirrors.
>
Got anything that resembles evidence on this point?
> >> They were
> >> flat-out murdered. Women, children, servants and all. Then, later,
> >> the man who organized the crimes was made into a Bolshevik hero and
> >> his pistol was put in a museum of the "revolution" for generations of
> >> Russian children to marvel at while absorbing exactly the wrong
> >> principles.
>
> > Awful
>
> Being on the side of the murderers means you are not entitled to say
> "awful." You are sitting desperately on the fence, refusing to pick a
> side to come down on.
Not at all. While I would have been on the side of the Reds in terms of
getting the country out of the war, rebuilding agriculture and
industry, redistributing the land, resisting those whose criminal
activities tended to sabotage these efforts, supporting socialist
revolution in Germany and elsewhere etc ... I would have been against
harming non-combatants, banning normal political activity. I would have
campaigned from the start for the CA and opposed shutting it down. I'd
have been against a free hand for the Cheka and have favoured full
accountability, been against cruel and unusual punishment even for
those who were guilty of actual crimes.
In a more contemporary sense, I hear you declaring that Bush is a
murderer without you ceasing your support of the United States and its
interests. One can support a cause but oppose the methods of some with
whom one is in an alliance. I've said elsewhere and I'll repeat it
here, that the mere fact that what I propose above might have led to
the fall of the Bolsheviks would not deter me from proposing it.
I forget who it was who said it, but I endorse the view that any regime
that was worthwhile ought to be able to recruit people to fight for it
voluntarily, and if the numbers of people or the quality of the support
proved inadequate, then that's the way it goes.
Fran
Bert Byfield
>> "awful." You are sitting desperately on the fence, refusing to pick a
>> side to come down on.
> Not at all. While I would have been on the side of the Reds in terms
> of getting the country out of the war, rebuilding agriculture and
> industry, redistributing the land, resisting those whose criminal
> activities tended to sabotage these efforts, supporting socialist
> revolution in Germany and elsewhere etc ... I would have been against
> harming non-combatants, banning normal political activity.
In short, you would have been a counter-revolutionary?
> I would
> have campaigned from the start for the CA and opposed shutting it
> down.
Yeah. You'd have been a Social Revolutionary like Maria Spiridonova and
Fanny Kaplan. They shot Lenin.
> I'd have been against a free hand for the Cheka and have
> favoured full accountability, been against cruel and unusual
> punishment even for those who were guilty of actual crimes.
The Bolsheviks would have jailed and/or shot you and called you a
capitalist enemy.
> In a more contemporary sense, I hear you declaring that Bush is a
> murderer without you ceasing your support of the United States and its
> interests.
Evil acts vs evil people. But Lenin and Stalin were your heroes. Bush was
never my hero.
> One can support a cause but oppose the methods of some with
> whom one is in an alliance.
Actions speak lounder than words.
> I've said elsewhere and I'll repeat it
> here, that the mere fact that what I propose above might have led to
> the fall of the Bolsheviks would not deter me from proposing it.
Speaking words that might have led to the downfall of the Bolsheviks was
more serious than serial rape to the Bolsheviks.
> I forget who it was who said it, but I endorse the view that any
> regime that was worthwhile ought to be able to recruit people to fight
> for it voluntarily, and if the numbers of people or the quality of the
> support proved inadequate, then that's the way it goes. Fran
It was Ayn Rand. Welcome to the capitalist camp.
FRAN
Bert Byfield wrote:
> >> Being on the side of the murderers means you are not entitled to say
> >> "awful." You are sitting desperately on the fence, refusing to pick a
> >> side to come down on.
>
> > Not at all. While I would have been on the side of the Reds in terms
> > of getting the country out of the war, rebuilding agriculture and
> > industry, redistributing the land, resisting those whose criminal
> > activities tended to sabotage these efforts, supporting socialist
> > revolution in Germany and elsewhere etc ... I would have been against
> > harming non-combatants, banning normal political activity.
>
> In short, you would have been a counter-revolutionary?
No, a consistent revolutionary.
>
> > I would
> > have campaigned from the start for the CA and opposed shutting it
> > down.
>
> Yeah. You'd have been a Social Revolutionary like Maria Spiridonova and
> Fanny Kaplan. They shot Lenin.
>
Them's the breaks. You have to go with what is right and take your
chances.
> > I'd have been against a free hand for the Cheka and have
> > favoured full accountability, been against cruel and unusual
> > punishment even for those who were guilty of actual crimes.
>
> The Bolsheviks would have jailed and/or shot you and called you a
> capitalist enemy.
>
I doubt it, as I would have been a longtime member, but again, everyone
is bound to do what is right by one's ethical principles and to let the
chips fall where they may. To act otherwise is instant political death.
You have to be able to look yourself in the mirror and see someone
worthwhile looking back.
> > In a more contemporary sense, I hear you declaring that Bush is a
> > murderer without you ceasing your support of the United States and its
> > interests.
>
> Evil acts vs evil people. But Lenin and Stalin were your heroes. Bush was
> never my hero.
>
I don't have heroes. I haven't in at least 28 years. And Stalin was
never amongst them, even then.
> > One can support a cause but oppose the methods of some with
> > whom one is in an alliance.
>
> Actions speak lounder than words.
>
> > I've said elsewhere and I'll repeat it
> > here, that the mere fact that what I propose above might have led to
> > the fall of the Bolsheviks would not deter me from proposing it.
>
> Speaking words that might have led to the downfall of the Bolsheviks was
> more serious than serial rape to the Bolsheviks.
>
That's your view.
> > I forget who it was who said it, but I endorse the view that any
> > regime that was worthwhile ought to be able to recruit people to fight
> > for it voluntarily, and if the numbers of people or the quality of the
> > support proved inadequate, then that's the way it goes. Fran
>
> It was Ayn Rand. Welcome to the capitalist camp.
Well that illustrates my above point in reverse. One may agree with
another's ideas without joining their cause.
Fran
Bert Byfield
>>>> say "awful." You are sitting desperately on the fence, refusing to
>>>> pick a side to come down on.
>>> Not at all. While I would have been on the side of the Reds in
>>> terms of getting the country out of the war, rebuilding agriculture
>>> and industry, redistributing the land, resisting those whose
>>> criminal activities tended to sabotage these efforts, supporting
>>> socialist revolution in Germany and elsewhere etc ... I would have
>>> been against harming non-combatants, banning normal political
>>> activity.
>> In short, you would have been a counter-revolutionary?
> No, a consistent revolutionary.
You are now calling Lenin and Stalin inconsistent? Bolsheviks shoot
people for that.
>>> I would
>>> have campaigned from the start for the CA and opposed shutting it
>>> down.
>> Yeah. You'd have been a Social Revolutionary like Maria Spiridonova
>> and Fanny Kaplan. They shot Lenin.
> Them's the breaks. You have to go with what is right and take your
> chances.
The point is: your attitude is counter-revolutionary, as judged by your
fellow Marxists.
>> > I'd have been against a free hand for the Cheka and have
>> > favoured full accountability, been against cruel and unusual
>> > punishment even for those who were guilty of actual crimes.
>> The Bolsheviks would have jailed and/or shot you and called you a
>> capitalist enemy.
> I doubt it, as I would have been a longtime member, but again,
I'll let Hunter do the details, but in short nearly ALL the Old
Bolsheviks did not live long enough to die of natural causes. Being a
longtime member does not protect anyone.
> everyone is bound to do what is right by one's ethical principles and
> to let the chips fall where they may. To act otherwise is instant
> political death. You have to be able to look yourself in the mirror
> and see someone worthwhile looking back.
No practical Bolshevik can afford this.
>> > In a more contemporary sense, I hear you declaring that Bush is a
>> > murderer without you ceasing your support of the United States and
>> > its interests.
>> Evil acts vs evil people. But Lenin and Stalin were your heroes. Bush
>> was never my hero.
> I don't have heroes. I haven't in at least 28 years. And Stalin was
> never amongst them, even then.
If Lenin is a hero, Stalin is a hero. They were birds of a feather.
>> > One can support a cause but oppose the methods of some with
>> > whom one is in an alliance.
>> Actions speak lounder than words.
>> > I've said elsewhere and I'll repeat it
>> > here, that the mere fact that what I propose above might have led
>> > to the fall of the Bolsheviks would not deter me from proposing it.
>> Speaking words that might have led to the downfall of the Bolsheviks
>> was more serious than serial rape to the Bolsheviks.
> That's your view.
NO, that's the history of the socialist experiment in Russia.
>> > I forget who it was who said it, but I endorse the view that any
>> > regime that was worthwhile ought to be able to recruit people to
>> > fight for it voluntarily, and if the numbers of people or the
>> > quality of the support proved inadequate, then that's the way it
>> > goes. Fran
>> It was Ayn Rand. Welcome to the capitalist camp.
> Well that illustrates my above point in reverse. One may agree with
> another's ideas without joining their cause. Fran
But you still SUPPORT their cause, right?
FRAN
Bert Byfield wrote:
> >>>> Being on the side of the murderers means you are not entitled to
> >>>> say "awful." You are sitting desperately on the fence, refusing to
> >>>> pick a side to come down on.
>
> >>> Not at all. While I would have been on the side of the Reds in
> >>> terms of getting the country out of the war, rebuilding agriculture
> >>> and industry, redistributing the land, resisting those whose
> >>> criminal activities tended to sabotage these efforts, supporting
> >>> socialist revolution in Germany and elsewhere etc ... I would have
> >>> been against harming non-combatants, banning normal political
> >>> activity.
>
> >> In short, you would have been a counter-revolutionary?
>
> > No, a consistent revolutionary.
>
> You are now calling Lenin and Stalin inconsistent? Bolsheviks shoot
> people for that.
>
Stalin would have.
> >>> I would
> >>> have campaigned from the start for the CA and opposed shutting it
> >>> down.
>
> >> Yeah. You'd have been a Social Revolutionary like Maria Spiridonova
> >> and Fanny Kaplan. They shot Lenin.
>
> > Them's the breaks. You have to go with what is right and take your
> > chances.
>
> The point is: your attitude is counter-revolutionary, as judged by your
> fellow Marxists.
>
I doubt it. But that would be decided at the time.
> >> > I'd have been against a free hand for the Cheka and have
> >> > favoured full accountability, been against cruel and unusual
> >> > punishment even for those who were guilty of actual crimes.
>
> >> The Bolsheviks would have jailed and/or shot you and called you a
> >> capitalist enemy.
>
> > I doubt it, as I would have been a longtime member, but again,
>
> I'll let Hunter do the details, but in short nearly ALL the Old
> Bolsheviks did not live long enough to die of natural causes. Being a
> longtime member does not protect anyone.
>
The bulk of the purges were between 1934-39. Lenin was cold in the
grave by then.
> > everyone is bound to do what is right by one's ethical principles and
> > to let the chips fall where they may. To act otherwise is instant
> > political death. You have to be able to look yourself in the mirror
> > and see someone worthwhile looking back.
>
> No practical Bolshevik can afford this.
>
It's essential.
> >> > In a more contemporary sense, I hear you declaring that Bush is a
> >> > murderer without you ceasing your support of the United States and
> >> > its interests.
>
> >> Evil acts vs evil people. But Lenin and Stalin were your heroes. Bush
> >> was never my hero.
>
> > I don't have heroes. I haven't in at least 28 years. And Stalin was
> > never amongst them, even then.
>
> If Lenin is a hero, Stalin is a hero. They were birds of a feather.
>
I just said that I have not had any for 28 years -- none. All people
are flawed -- works in progress -- which is why one ought to read,
listen, think, collaborate and take little at face value. Ideas can be
interesting, but illuminating or not, their bearers are just ordinary
human beings.
> >> > One can support a cause but oppose the methods of some with
> >> > whom one is in an alliance.
>
> >> Actions speak lounder than words.
>
> >> > I've said elsewhere and I'll repeat it
> >> > here, that the mere fact that what I propose above might have led
> >> > to the fall of the Bolsheviks would not deter me from proposing it.
>
> >> Speaking words that might have led to the downfall of the Bolsheviks
> >> was more serious than serial rape to the Bolsheviks.
>
> > That's your view.
>
> NO, that's the history of the socialist experiment in Russia.
>
So you keep insisting.
> >> > I forget who it was who said it, but I endorse the view that any
> >> > regime that was worthwhile ought to be able to recruit people to
> >> > fight for it voluntarily, and if the numbers of people or the
> >> > quality of the support proved inadequate, then that's the way it
> >> > goes. Fran
>
> >> It was Ayn Rand. Welcome to the capitalist camp.
>
> > Well that illustrates my above point in reverse. One may agree with
> > another's ideas without joining their cause. Fran
>
> But you still SUPPORT their cause, right?
I support the cause of people finding a way to collaborate effectively,
efficiently and equitably so as to achieve freedom. I support means
that lead to the victory of that cause and oppose means and politics
that subvert it. The Bolshevik Revolution failed, as was likely from
the start, but no better means were to hand and sitting quietly hoping
even for stasis was excluded too. It fell to communists to support it
and to see to it that the prospects of a positive outcome were kept as
bright as possible. They failed in this too because the human material
and the context were too poor and because they were unable to
comprehend the enormity of the task or gather the materials even to
stave off collapse. That's tragic but it was the hand we were dealt.
Today, we have some better options, in part because we've seen the past
and how badly it can go.
Fran
Bert Byfield
> efficiently and equitably so as to achieve freedom. I support means
> that lead to the victory of that cause and oppose means and politics
> that subvert it. The Bolshevik Revolution failed, as was likely from
> the start, but no better means were to hand and sitting quietly hoping
> even for stasis was excluded too. It fell to communists to support it
> and to see to it that the prospects of a positive outcome were kept as
> bright as possible. They failed in this too because the human material
> and the context were too poor and because they were unable to
> comprehend the enormity of the task or gather the materials even to
> stave off collapse. That's tragic but it was the hand we were dealt.
> Today, we have some better options, in part because we've seen the past
> and how badly it can go. Fran
Most of the comrades *know* they are selling a program that enriches
themselves (the political animals) at the expense of everyone else. You
seem to have managed to believe in the theory, no matter how often it is
exposed as evil. You are a *True Believer*. ;-)
Perhaps you are like that lady in the movie *Reds* who said she would
continue to believe, even though the movement was in crisis, because she
had invested too much of her life to stop now. I think it was when the
Russian government exposed Stalin's crimes to the world in 1956, and the
woman was playing the part of Rosa Luxemberg.
Hunter Watson
Nope. I guess I'm a terminal provincial.
FRAN
Bert Byfield wrote:
> > I support the cause of people finding a way to collaborate effectively,
> > efficiently and equitably so as to achieve freedom. I support means
> > that lead to the victory of that cause and oppose means and politics
> > that subvert it. The Bolshevik Revolution failed, as was likely from
> > the start, but no better means were to hand and sitting quietly hoping
> > even for stasis was excluded too. It fell to communists to support it
> > and to see to it that the prospects of a positive outcome were kept as
> > bright as possible. They failed in this too because the human material
> > and the context were too poor and because they were unable to
> > comprehend the enormity of the task or gather the materials even to
> > stave off collapse. That's tragic but it was the hand we were dealt.
> > Today, we have some better options, in part because we've seen the past
> > and how badly it can go. Fran
>
> Most of the comrades *know* they are selling a program that enriches
> themselves (the political animals) at the expense of everyone else.
Nonsense. How could you know this? Most of the comrades I've known
don't expect to see revolution, much less benefit personally from it at
the expense of others. People who are interested in financial
enrichment have much better options in rich countries like the US and
Australia.
> You
> seem to have managed to believe in the theory, no matter how often it is
> exposed as evil. You are a *True Believer*. ;-)
There's neither evil nor good. There are human activities that
correspond more or less with the needs of working humanity and the
possibilities for autonomy for the individuals composing that section
of humanity.
> Perhaps you are like that lady in the movie *Reds* who said she would
> continue to believe, even though the movement was in crisis, because she
> had invested too much of her life to stop now. I think it was when the
> Russian government exposed Stalin's crimes to the world in 1956, and the
> woman was playing the part of Rosa Luxemberg.
No, like most communists, I'm more like Cassandra, though I don't claim
to have been Marx's girlfriend or to have run off with someone else. We
see all too clearly what is flawed in contemporary society and its
headlong rush to general ruin and more, we have a model for ripping
control of the direction of society out of the recklessly self-serving
lunatics and placing it in the hands of the oarsmen in the base of the
ship. For a variety of reasons, the oarsmen are largely deaf to our
warnings. They can only see the turbulent sea outside, but not the
rocky shoals ahead and cling to the hope that the captain wouldn't do
them wrong and that one day they may be promoted to a position with
greater comfort.
It's a sad thing, but there are worse fates than that of Cassandra to
Apollo. One might be one of the ten thousand children dying in Africa
every day of hunger, or some super-exploited ten-year-old working as an
indentured servant in a sub-continental or South East Asian sweat shop;
even being like you or Hunter, possessed of an education and reasonable
life chances, yet devoted it seems to ridiculing those few voices who
come to the aid of working humanity against its oppressors. We say
"storm the bridge before it's too late" and you say "keep rowing and
don't listen to them because 90 years ago some of their political
ancestors messed up".
That's not a place I want to be. As I said, you have to be able to look
yourself in the mirror each morning and see a worthwhile person staring
back.
Fran
Hunter Watson
Marxists have no exclusive claim to be " ... voices who come to the
aid of working humanity." They are a tiny fraction of them at best. We
liberals are far more numerous and effective. In fact in terms of
simple justice Marxists should have no claim at all, at least as the
doctrine stands today. Their system and methodology was tried
extensively and failed at horrendous human cost not just in the Soviet
Union but world-wide. Like various Popes they refuse to reconsider and
to reject the offending parts of the doctrine. They are incapable of
learning from experience that dictatorship begets more dictatorship and
that absolute power corrupts absolutely. They are incapable of learning
that liberal institutions rather than men are the bedrock of human
liberty. We liberals can look in the mirror in the morning. Can
Leninists?
FRAN
But who stares back but an apologist for the exploitation of most
humans by some humans?
> Can Leninists?
As I believe I said a while back, I'm not sure exactly what a Leninist
amounts to in the contemporary world. Marx took a while to become a
Marxist, and Lenin, in other circumstances, might have become something
else.
But that's speculative and not that important. I'm not a fan of heroes,
but of ideas and learning and reason. That tells me human collaboration
is at the heart of the struggle for freedom, and that capitalism, in
any form one could recognise, is subversive of that collaboration and
therefore to be opposed with something that isn't. That something is
socialism.
Fran
Hunter Watson
And it must be Marxian? It must be dictatorial? It must require that
the faithful still believe in men like Trotsky? Have you taken the half
hour necessary to read through Bryan Caplan's Museum of Communism? Just
a half hour. It's on the screen now.
Hunter
FRAN
No, but in practice, as I believe even you have implied, what is
"Marxian" is not all that prescriptive.
> It must be dictatorial?
Certainly not
> It must require that
> the faithful still believe in men like Trotsky?
No -- they should work out such things for themselves
> Have you taken the half
> hour necessary to read through Bryan Caplan's Museum of Communism? Just
> a half hour. It's on the screen now.
Yes, some while back. Sounded like a screed to me. I see no solid basis
for thinking any substantial claim is founded in anything emipirical.
Fran
>
> Hunter
Hunter Watson
FRAN wrote:
> > Have you taken the half
> > hour necessary to read through Bryan Caplan's Museum of Communism? Just
> > a half hour. It's on the screen now.
>
> Yes, some while back. Sounded like a screed to me. I see no solid basis
> for thinking any substantial claim is founded in anything emipirical.
>
> Fran
You could say such a thing about any work of history you've ever read.
Histories are secondary works, i.e., not the primary sources
themselves. One has to take a little leap of faith whenever one reads a
secondary source. But when you know something about how academic
history works as a discipline and how the peer review process works,
and then when you have read dozens of books and get pretty much the
same impression from almost all of them---then when you say it hasn't
been proved you're pretty close to those three chimpanzees covering
their ears, eyes and mouths: "Hear no evil, see no evil and speak no
evil."
FRAN
You've cited some truly enormous casualty figures, and you've asserted
mens rea on a scale to match. Surely that requires some impressive body
of documentation -- something more than a bunch of people passing
around something like "it must have happened like this" and "there
would have been that many in this area and now we fancy there'd only be
that number remaining".
To give a comparison, it has been asserted that the result of the entry
of Europeans to Australia on the indigenes here has been the reduction
of a population of 2,000,000 to about 200,000 today. There is wide
debate on this initial figure, and also wide debate on whow many were
killed directly, how many quietly by one means or another by settlers,
how many died as a result of displacement and so on. Between the
estimates of the most charitable to the Europeans and the least lies an
argument for active genocide or something much less criminal.
Regrettably, the Aboriginals did not do censuses, but there are no mass
graves that indicate any morbidity on the scale that would be required
for the upper figure to be true, and although it's possible that
"natural" causes may have left quite a few decomposing bodies out in
little known parts of the bush, finding 150-year-old bodies out there
has not been common. So we can assume a lower figure. But whatever
figure we choose, there has to be a supporting methodology from which
one can make inferences. And if one wants to argue centrally planned
genocide, one will surely need some documents showing people in
authority arranging matters to just that end on a scale that would make
the claim plausible. In Australia, while here and there there were
examples of government officials wanting to engage in eugenics, or
breeding them out, or allowing them to die off, etc, these were
sporadic, and not well coordinated and not on any large scale. It was a
kind of malign neglect and indifference to what settlers did that
caused most of the damage and then some ruinous policies relating to
Aboriginla families.
What have you in relation to the early USSR that supports your charges?
Fran
Bert Byfield
> mens rea on a scale to match. Surely that requires some impressive
> body of documentation
No problem. Go to your local library.
> -- something more than a bunch of people passing
> around something like "it must have happened like this" and "there
Lots of first-hand stories about it all are available. Lots of people
involved wrote books. The historians have a lot to work with.
> would have been that many in this area and now we fancy there'd only
> be that number remaining".
On some issues, it's all that's available.
> To give a comparison, it has been asserted that the result of the
> entry of Europeans to Australia on the indigenes here has been the
> reduction of a population of 2,000,000 to about 200,000 today. There
> is wide debate on this initial figure, and also wide debate on whow
> many were killed directly, how many quietly by one means or another by
Yeah, but in this case, people really didn't document it all and really
don't know what happened. In the case of Soviet Russia everyone knows
what happened, but the socialists insist on telling lots of lies trying
to cover up what really happened. That's entirely different.
> Regrettably, the Aboriginals did not do censuses, but there are no
> mass graves that indicate any morbidity on the scale that would be
Trying to change the subject? Think Hunter is that easy to divert?
> What have you in relation to the early USSR that supports your
> charges? Fran
What is it that you will find acceptable? Marxist-approved only, I
expect.
FRAN
Bert
You surely don't expect me to fall prostrate to me knees and recant
just because some High Priest of Right-wing PC proclaims his fatwa from
his academic minaret every Friday at sundown?
Sure bad, terrible and perhaps even criminal things happened. The
Bolsheviks took on more than they could reasonably expect to implement,
and we should never try to apologise for such wrongs, and further,
chastened, take that experience on board before embarking on a new
adventure. Authentic revolutions can be messy. And controlled ones may
be coups.
Nobody said such things were easy.
Fran
Hunter Watson
Yes, the casualty estimates are enormous. Estimates I've encountered
range from an improbable low of 10 or 12 million to a high of 62. The
watershed in terms of scholarly analysis seems to have been the 1990s
when the archives opened and scholars were faced with Soviet documents
which of themselves seem to demonstrate victims in the 18 to 20 million
range. One of the problems of interpretation, of course, relates to the
credibility of the authors, i.e., NKVD and GULAG administrators.
Murderers writing down accounts of their own crimes have great
incentive to distort the record.
Evidence of *mens rea,* which means guilty knowledge or criminal
intent, an element of proof required for conviction of major felonies,
is abundant. I'll address that first, but will have to limit it to a
sufficient sample.
>
> To give a comparison, it has been asserted that the result of the entry
> of Europeans to Australia on the indigenes here has been the reduction
> of a population of 2,000,000 to about 200,000 today. There is wide
> debate on this initial figure, and also wide debate on whow many were
> killed directly, how many quietly by one means or another by settlers,
> how many died as a result of displacement and so on. Between the
> estimates of the most charitable to the Europeans and the least lies an
> argument for active genocide or something much less criminal.
>
> Regrettably, the Aboriginals did not do censuses, but there are no mass
> graves that indicate any morbidity on the scale that would be required
> for the upper figure to be true, and although it's possible that
> "natural" causes may have left quite a few decomposing bodies out in
> little known parts of the bush, finding 150-year-old bodies out there
> has not been common. So we can assume a lower figure. But whatever
> figure we choose, there has to be a supporting methodology from which
> one can make inferences.
Of course, and every methodology requires certain presumptions which
are more or less probable.
And if one wants to argue centrally planned
> genocide, one will surely need some documents showing people in
> authority arranging matters to just that end on a scale that would make
> the claim plausible.
Of course.
In Australia, while here and there there were
> examples of government officials wanting to engage in eugenics, or
> breeding them out, or allowing them to die off, etc, these were
> sporadic, and not well coordinated and not on any large scale. It was a
> kind of malign neglect and indifference to what settlers did that
> caused most of the damage and then some ruinous policies relating to
> Aboriginla families.
>
> What have you in relation to the early USSR that supports your charges?
>
> Fran
First, mens rea.
"Anyone who believes in class war must recognize that civil war, in any
class-based society, is the natural continuation, development, and
result of class war." (Lenin, 1916)
"In his famous April Theses he reiterated his implacable hostility to
both a parliamentary republic and the democratic process." (Werth, p.
49)
There is no point in waiting for a formal majority for the Bolsheviks;
revolutions do not wait for such things. History will never forgive us
if we do not seize power immediately." (Lenin, 1917)
The PRMC, the predecessor of the Cheka and NKVD, Dzerzhinsky described
as "...a light, flexible structure that could swing into action at a
moment's notice, without any bureaucratic interference. There were no
restrictions when the time came for the iron fist of the dictatorship
of the proletraiat to smite its foe."
"Through the PRMC it is the masses who speak, and who act against their
class enemy, against the enemies of the people. We are here only to
channel and direct the hate and the legitimate desire for revenge of
the oppressed against their oppressors." (Dzerzhinsky)
Introduction of the concepts "enemy of the people" and "suspect": PRMC
proclamation dated 13 November (26 November): "High-ranking
functionaries in the state administration, banks, the treasury, the
railways, and the post and telegraph offices are all sabotaging the
measures of the Bolshevik government. Henceforth such individuals are
to be described as 'enemies of the people.' Their names will be printed
in all the newspapers, and lists of the enemies of the people will be
put up in public places." A few days later: "All individuals
*suspected* of sabotage, speculation, and opportunism are now liable to
be arrested immediately as enemies of the people and transferrred to
the Kronstadt prisons." (Werth)
On November 28th the notion of "enemy of the people" was
institutionalized. A decree signed by Lenin stipulated that "all
leaders of the Constitutional Democratic party,, a party filled with
enemies of the people, are hereby to be considered outlaws, and are to
be arrested immediately and brought before a revoutionary court." These
courts were authorized to act "in accordance with revolutionary order
and legality" while a new penal code was drawn up, a thing which took
several years.
Kursky, Peoples' Commisar of Justice, 1918, recognized that the
revolutionary courts were not courts in the ordinary "bourgeois" sense
which had been immediately suppressed. They were instead weapons in the
struggle against counterrevolution, whose main concern was eradication
rather than judgment. (Werth, p. 55)
On 4 (17) November the new Food Commission proclamation stigmatized
"the rich classes who profit from the misery of others," noting that
"the time has come to requisition the surplusses of the rich and all
their goods as well." On 11 (24) November the Commission decided to
send armed detachments into the countryside prefiguring three years of
conflict between the peasantry and the regime provoking "much violence
and terror".
On 10 (23) the Military Investigation Commission was carged with the
arrest of "counterrevolutionary" officers (usually denounced by their
own troops). It soon had jurisdiction over hundreds of people arrested
every day for things like "belonging to a hostile class." (Werth)
At the time of the creation of the Cheka, Lenin confided to his
secretary Bonch-Bruevich an urgent need to find "our own
Fouquier-Tinville, to combat the counterrevolutionary rabble." "...of
all of us, it's Feliks...who has had the most contact with the Okhrana.
He knows what he's doing!" (Werth, 57)
Dzerzhinski: "What I am proposing, what I am demanding, is the creation
of a mechanism that, in a truly revolutionary and suitable Bolshevik
fashion, will filter outthe counterrevolutionaries once and for all!"
"As an 'extraordinary commission,' the Cheka was to prosper and act
without the slightest basis in law. Dzerzhinsky, who like Lenin wanted
nothing so much as a free hand, described it in the following
astonishing fashion: 'It is life itself that shows the Cheka the
direction to follow.' Life in this instance meant the 'reolutionary
terror of the masses,' the street violence fervently encouraged by many
of the Bolshevik leaders, who had momentarily forgotten their profound
distrust of the spontaneous actions of the people."
Trotsky on 1 (14) December, 1917: "...in less than a month, this terror
is going to take extremely violent forms, just as it did during the
great French Revolution. Not only prison awaits our enemies, but the
guillotine, that remarkable invention of the French Revolution which
has the capacity to make a man a whole head shorter."
Lenin a few weeks later:
"The Soviet regime has acted in the way that all revolutionary
proletariats should act; it has made a clean break with bourgeois
justice, which is an instrument of the oppressive classes...Soldiers
and workers understand that no one will help them unless they help
themselves. If the masses do not rise up spontaneously, none ofthis
will lead to anything...For as long as we fail to treat speculators the
way they deserve to be treated---with a bullet in the head---we will
not get anywhere at all."
To be continued if I don't get bored.
Hunter Watson
I have staved it off. Refreshed by visiting a handsome exhibit of
impressionist paintings of the local scene and then by watching "Being
Julia" wherein art and love among beautiful people comingle on the
brink of the last great European civil war, I will continue for a
while:
" 'Civil war' may not be the most appropriate term to describe the
first clashes of the winter of 1917 and the spring of 1918 in southern
Russia, which involved a few thousand men from the army of volunteers
and General Rudolf Sivers' Bolshevik troops, who numbered scarcely
6,000. What is immediately striking is the contrast between the
relatively modest number of troops involved in these clashes and the
extraordinary repressive violence exercised by the Bolsheviks, not
simply against the soldiers they captured but also against civilians.
Established in June 1919 by General Anton Denikin, commander in chief
of the armed forces in the south of Russia, the Commission to
Investigate Bolshevik Crimes tried to record, in the few months of its
existence, the atrocities commited by the Bolsheviks in Ukraine, the
Kuban, the Don region, and the Crimea. The statements gathered by this
commission, which constitute the principal source of Sergei Melgunov's
1926 classic, 'The Red Terror in Russia, 1918-1924, demonstrate that
innumerable atrocities were committed from January 1918 onward. In
Taganrog units from Sivers' army had thrown fifty Juners and 'White'
officers, their hands and feet bound, into a blast furnace. In
Evpatoria several hundred officers and 'bourgeois' were tied up,
tortured, and thrown into the sea. Similar acts of violence occurred in
most of the cities of the Crimea occupied by the Bolsheviks, including
Sevastopol, Yalta, Alushta, and Simferopol. Similar atrocities were
recorded from April and May 1918 in the big Cossack cities then in
revolt. The extremely precise files of the Denikin commission record
'corpses with the hands cut off, broken bones, heads ripped off, broken
jaws, and genitals removed." "These massacres, which targeted not only
enemy comatants but also civilian 'enemies of the people' (for
instance, among the 240 people killed in Yalta at the beginning of
March 1918, there were some 70 politicians, lawyers, journalists, and
teachers, as well as 165 officers), were often carried out by 'armed
detachnents,' 'Red Guards,' and other, unspecified 'Bolshevik
elements.' Exterminating the enemy of the people was simply the logical
extension of a revolution that was both political and social. This
conception of the world did not suddenly spring into being in the
aftermath of October 1917, but the Bolshevik seizure of power which was
quite explicit on the issue, did play a role in its subsequent
legitimation." (Werth)
"On 15 (28) December 1917 Dzerzhinsky published an appeal in
'Isvestiya' (News) inviting all soviets to organize their own Chekas.
The result was a swift flourishing of the 'commissions,' 'detachments,'
and other 'extraordinary organizations' that the central authorities
had great problems in controlling when they decided, a few months
later, to end such 'mass initiatives' and to organize a centralized,
structured network of Chekas." (Werth)
"By that date (July 1918) the Cheka's record as an instrument of
repression was already enormous. And the organization, whose personnel
had numbered no more than 100 in December 1917, had increased to 12,000
in a mere six months." (Werth)
Dzerzhinsky's first 100 were "...for the most part old
comrades-in-arms, mostly Poles and people fromthe Baltic states, nearly
all of whom had also worked for the PRMC, and who became the future
leaders of the GPU of the 1920s and the NKVD of the 1930s: Martin
Latsis, Viacheslav Menhinsky, Stanislav Messing, Grigory Moroz, Jan
Peters, Meir Trilisser, Josif Unshlikht, and Genrikh Yagoda." (Werth)
"What is the point of a 'People's Commissariat for Justice" Steinberg
asked Lenin. "It would be more honest to have a people's Commissariat
for Social Extermination. People would understand more clearly."
"Excellent idea," Lenin countered, "that's exactly how I see it.
Unfortunately, it wouldn't do to call it that!"
"In Dzerzhinsky's view, the Cheka should be responsible for its acts
only to the government itself". Objections to wholesale administrative
murder were "...the nitpicking legalism of the old school of the
*ancien regime*.
"Lenin turned to this (Extraordinary Commission for Food and Transport)
in mid-February with a draft decree that the members of the
commission----who besides Trotsky included Aleksandr Tsyurupa, the
people's commissar of food--rejected. Acccording to the text prepared
by Lenin, all peasants were to be required to hand over any surplus
food in exchange for a receipt. Any defaulters who failed to hand in
supplies within the required time were to be executed. 'When we read
this proposal we were at a loss for words,' Tsyurupa recalled in his
memoirs. "To carry out a project like this would have led to executions
on a massive scale.' Lenin's project was simply abandoned."
When the German Army advanced in 1918, the call for resistance against
the invaders was accompanied by a callfor mass terror: "All enemy
agents, speculators, hooligans, counterrevolutionary agitators, and
German spies will be shot on sight." This proclamation effectively
installed martial law in all military zones. When peace was finally
agreed at Brest Litovsk on 3 March 1918, it technically lost its legal
force, and legally the death penalty was reestablished again only on 16
June 1918. Nevertheless, from February 1918 on the Cheka carried out
numerous summary executions, even outside the military zones."
"The Cheka launched its first major operation on the night of 11-12
April 1918, when more than 1,000 men fromits special troop detachments
stormed some twenty anarchist strongholds in Moscow. After several
hours of hard fighting, 520 anarchists were arrested; 25 were summarily
executed as 'bandits,' a term that from then on would designate workers
on strike, deserters fleeing conscription, or peasants resisting the
forced requisitioning of grain."
"Lenin in April 1918: Smallholders have always been afraid of
discipline and organization. The time has come for us to have no mercy,
and turn against them.
Tsyurpua before the same audience: "I say it quite openly; we are now
at war, and it is only with guns that we will get the grain we need."
Trotsky added: "Our only choice now is civil war. Civil war is the
struggle for bread...Long live civil war!"
(The Bolsheviks were in possession at the time of the entire Tsarist
treasury including large amounts of gold bullion. Instead of using it
for food they began sending it to organizations in Germany, Poland, the
United States and elsewhere in support of "revolution.)
We have a decent start but so far that's all it is. More tomorrow.
HW
Hunter Watson
War Communism: "On 13 May 1918 a decree granted extraordinary powers to
the People's Commissariat of Food, requiring it to requisition all
foodstuffs and to establish what was in fact a 'food army.' By July
nearly 12,000 people were involved in these 'food detachments, 'which
at their height in 1920 were to number more than 24,000 men, over half
of whom were unemployed workers from Petrograd, attracated by the
promise of a decent salary and a proportional share of the confiscated
food. The second decisive measure was the decree of 11 June 1918, which
established committees of poor peasants, ordering them to work in close
collaboration with the food detachments and also to requisition, in
exchange for a share of the profits, any agricultural surplusses that
the better-off peasants might be keeping for themselves. These
committees of poor peasants soon displaced the rural soviets, which the
government judged to be untrustworthy, as they were contaminated with
Socialist Revolutionary ideology. Given the tasks they were ordered to
carry out--to seize by force the results of other people's labor--and
the motivations that were used to spur them on (power, a feeling of
frustration toward and envy of the rich, and the promise of a share of
the spoils), one can imagine what these first representatives of
Bolshevik power in the countryside were really like. As Andrea Graziosi
acutely notes: 'For these people, devotion to the cause--or rather to
the new state--and an undeniable operational capacity went hand in hand
with a rather faltering social and political conscience, an interest in
self-advancement, and traditional modes of behavior, including
brutality to their subordinates, alcoholism, and nepotism...What we
have here is a good example of the manner in which the 'spirit' of the
plebeian revolution penetrated the new regime.' "
"The very idea of using the poorest section of the peasantry reflected
the deep mistrust the Bolsheviks felt toward peasant society. In
accordance with a rather simplistic Marxist schema, they imagined it to
be divided into warring classes, whereas in fact it presented a fairly
solid front to the world, and particularly when faced with strangers
from the city. When the question arose of handing over surplusses, the
egalitarian and community-minded reflex found in the villages took
over, and instead of persecuting a few rich peasants, by far the
greater part of the requisitions were simply redistributed in the same
village, in accordance with people's needs." The expropriations by the
committees "alienated the large central mass of the peasantry".
"Confronted by the brutality of the food detachments, who were often
reinforced by the army or by Cheka units, a real guerilla force began
to take shape from June 1918 onward. In July and August 110 peasant
insurrections, described by the Bolsheviks as kulak rebellions. .
.broke out in the zones they controlled. All the trust that the
Bolsheviks had gained by not opposing the seizure of land in 1917
evaporated in a matter of weeks, and for more than three years the
policy of requisitioning food was to provoke thousands of riots and
uprisings, which were to degenerate into real peasant wars that were
quelled with terrible violence."
Spring of 1918: ".....complete shutdown of all non-Bolshevik
newspapers, the forcible dissolution of all non-Bolshevik soviets, the
arrest of opposition leaders, and the brutal repression of many
strikes." "In May and June 1918, 205 of the opposition socialist
newspapers were finally closed down. The mostly Menshevik or Socialist
Revolutionary soviets of Kaluga, Tver, Yaroslavl, Ryazan, Kostroma,
kazan, Saratov, Penza, Tambov, Voronezh, Orel, and Vologda were broken
up by force. Everywhere the scenario was almost identical: a few days
after victory by the opposing party and the consequent formation of a
new soviet, the Bolshevik detachment would call for an armed force,
usually a detachment of the Cheka, which then proclaimed martial law
and arrested the opposition leaders."
Dzerzhinsky: "The workers, under the influence of the Mensheviks, the
Socialist Revolutionaries, and other counterrevolutionary bastards,
have all gone on strike, and demonstrated in favor of a government made
up of all the different socialist parties. Put big posters up all over
the town saying that the Cheka will execute on the spot any bandit,
thief, speculator or counterrevolutionary found to be conspiring
against the soviet. Levy an extraordinary tax on all bourgeoois
residents of the town, and make a list of them, as that will be very
useful if things start happening. You ask how to form the local Cheka:
just round up all the most resolute people you can, who understand
there is nothing more effective than a bullet in the head to shut
people up. Experience has shown me that you only need a small number
of people like that to turn a whole situation around."
"From 8 to 11 June 1918 Dzerzhinsky presided over the first All-Russian
Conference of Chekas, attended by 100 delegates from forty-three local
sections which already employed more than 12,000 men. That figure would
rise to 40,000 by the end of 1918, and to more than 280,000 by the
beginning of 1921. Claiming to be above the soviets and, according to
certain Bolsheviks, even above the Party, the conference declared its
intention to 'take full responsibility for the struggle against the
counterrevolution throughout the republic, in its role as supreme
enforcer of administrative power in Soviet Russia.' "
"Modeled on the organization of the Lubyanka headquarters, each
provincial Cheka was to establish the following departments and
offices:
'1. Information Department. Offices: Red Army, monarchists, cadets,
right Socialist Revolutionaries and Mensheviks, anarchists, bourgeoisie
and church people, unions and workers' committees, and foreigners. The
appropriate offices were to draw up lists of suspects corresponding to
all the above categories
'2. Department for the Struggle against the Counterrevolution. Offices:
Red Army, monarchists, cadets, right Socialist Revolutionaries and
Mensheviks, anarchists unionists, national minorities, foreigners,
alcoholism, pogroms and public order, and press affairs.
'3. Department for the Struggle against Speculation and Abuses of
Authority.
'4. Operational Department, including special Cheka units.' "
Two days later the regime reinstated the death penalty. "The first
legal death sentence was pronounced by a revolutionary court on 21 June
1918; Admiral A. Shchastnyi was the first 'counterrevolutionary' to be
shot 'legally'."
"The Assembly of Workers Representatives, a mainly Menshevik group that
organized working-class opposition and was in fact a real opposition
power to the Petrograd soviet, was dissolved. more than 800 leaders
were arrested in two days. The workers' response to this huge wave of
arrests was to call a general strike for 21 july 1918. From Moscow
Lenin sent a letter to Grigori Zinoviev, president of the Petrograd
Committee of the Bolshevik Party. The document is extremely revealing,
both of Lenin's conception of terror and of an extraordinary political
delusion. Lenin was in fact committing a huge political mistake when he
claimed that the workiers were protesting Volodarsky's death (shot down
by a militant SR)." Lenin:
"Comrade Zinoviev! We have just learned that the workers of Petrograd
wish to respond to Comrade Volodarsky's murder with mass terror, and
that you (not you personally, but the members of the Party Committee in
Petrograd) are trying to stop them: I want to protest most vehemently
against this. We are compromising outrselves; we are calling for mass
terror in the resolutions passed by the Soviet, but when the time comes
for action, we obstruct the natural reactions of the masses. This
cannot be! The terrorists will start to think we are being halfhearted.
This is the hour of truth: It is of supreme importance that we
encourage and make use of the energy of mass terror directed against
the counterrevolutionaries, expecially those of Petrograd, whose
example is decisive. Regards, Lenin."
Next, The Red Terror.
HW
Hunter Watson
"It is quite clear that preparations are being made for a White Guard
uprising in Nizhni Novgorod," wrote Lenin in a lelegram on 9 August
1918 to the president of the Executive Committee of the Nizhni Novgorod
soviet, in response to a report about peasant protests against
requisitioning. "Your first response must be to establish a dictatorial
troika (i.e., you, Markin, and one other person) and introduce mass
terror, shooting or deporting the hudreds of prostitutes who are
causing all the soldiers to drink, all the ex-officers, etc. There is
not a moment to lose; you must act resolutely, with massive reprisals.
Immediate execution for anyone caught in possession of a firearm.
Massive deportations of Mensheviks and other suspect elements."
The next day: "Comrades! The kulak uprising in your five districts must
be crushed without pity. The interests of the whole revolution demand
such actions, for the final struggle with the kulaks has now begun. You
must make an example of these people. (1) Hang (I mean hang publically,
so that the people see it) at least 100 kulaks, rich bastards, and
known blood-suckers. (2) Publish their names. (3) Seize all their
grain. (4) Single out the hostages per my instructions in yesterday's
telegram. Do all this so that for miles around people see it all,
understand it, tremble, and tell themselves that we are killing the
bloodthirsty kulaks and that we will continue to do so. Reply saying
you have received and carried out these instructions. Yours, Lenin
P.S. Find tougher people."
After Yaroslavl (which had ousted the local Bolsheviks) fell,
"Dzerzhinsky sent a 'special investigative commission,' which in five
days, from 24 to 28 July 1918, executed 428 people."
HW
Hunter Watson
"In August 1918, before the official beginning of the period of Red
Terror on 3 September, the Bolshevik leaders, and in particular Lenin
and Dzerzhinsky, sent a great number of telegrams to local Cheka and
Party leaders,instructing them to take 'prophylactic measures' to
prevent any attempted insurrection. Among these measures, explained
Dzerzhinsky, 'the most effective are the taking of hostages among the
bourgeoisie, on the basis of the lists that you have drawn up for
exceptional taxes levied on the bourgeoisie...the arrest and
incarceration of all hostages and suspects in concentration camps."
On 8 August Lenin asked Tsyurupa, the people's commissar of food, to
draw up a decree stipulating that 'in all grain-producing
areas,twenty-five designated hostages drawn from the best-off of the
local inhaitants will answer with their lives for any failure in the
requisitioning plan.' "
Lenin, the next day: "I am not suggesting that these hostages actually
be taken, but that they are to be named explicitely in all the relevant
areas. The purpose of this is that the rich, just as they are
responsible for their own contribution, will also have to answer with
their lives for the immediate realization of the requisitioning plan in
their whole district."
On 9 August Lenin sent a telegram to the Executive Committee of the
province of Penza instructing them to intern "kulaks, priests, White
Guards, and other doubtful elements in a concentration camp." A few
days earlier both Dzerzhinsky and Trotsky had called for the
confinement of hostages in concentration camps. These concentration
camps were simple interrnment camps in which, as a simple interim
administrative measure and independently of any judicial process,
'doubtful elements' were to be kept. As in every other country at this
time, numerous camps for prisoners of war already existed in Russia.
First and foremost among the 'doubtful elements' to be arrested were
the leaders of opposition parties who were still at liberty. On 15
August 1918 Lenin and Dzerzhinsky jointly signed anorder for the arrest
of Yuri Martov, Fedor Dan, Aleksandr Potresov, and Mikhail Goldman, the
principlal leaders of the Menshevik Party, whose press had long been
silenced and whose representatives had been hounded out of the
soviets."
Martin Latsis, 23 August 1918, Izvestiya: In a civil war, there should
be no courts for the enemy. It is a fight to the death. If you don't
kill, you will die. So kill, if you don't want to be killed!"
In response to the attempts on the lives of Uritsky and Lenin
immediately appeared "articles in the press and more official
declarations calling for more terror: 'Workers,' said an article in
Pravda (Truth) on 31 August, 'the time has come for us to crush the
bourgeoisie or be crushed by it. The corruption of the bourgeoisie must
be cleansed from our towns immediately. Files will now be kept on all
men concerned, and those who represent a danger to the revolutionary
cause will be executed...The anthem of the working class will be a song
of hatred and revenge!' "
Dzerzhinsky and Peters' 'Appeal to the Working Classes' on the same day
read: "The working class must crush the hydra of the counterrevolution
with massive terror! We must let the enemies of the working classes
know that anyone caught in illegal possession of a firearm will be
immediately executed, and that anyone who dares to spread the slightest
rumor against the Soviet regime will be arrested immediately and sent
to a concentration camp!"
The next day Petrovsky wrote in Izvestiya: "The time has come to put a
stop to all this weakness and sentimentality. All the right Socialist
Revolutionaries must be arrested immediately. A great number of
hostages must be taken among the officers and the bourgeoisie. The
slightest resistance must be greeted with widespread executions.
Provincial Executive Committees must lead the way here. The Chekas and
the other organized militia must seek out and arrest suspects and
immediately execute all those found to be involved with
counterrevolutionary practices...Leaders of the Executive Committees
must immediately report any weakness or indecision on the part of the
local soviets to the Peoplle's Commissariat of Internal Afgfaris. No
weakness or indecision can be tolerated during this period of mass
terror." This telegram, which marked the official start of full-scale
Red Terror, gives the lie to Dzerzhinsky and Peters' later claims that
the Red Terror was ' a general and spontaneous reaction of indignation
by the masses to the attempted assassinations of 30 August 1918, and
began without any initiative from the central organizations."
A flashback (relevant to mens rea) to August 1917--a conversation
between the Menshevik Leader Raphael Abramovich and Dzerzhinsky:
"Abramovich, do you remember Lasalle's speech about the essence of a
Constitution."
"Of course."
"He said any Constitution is always determined by the relation between
the social forces at work in a given country at the time in question. I
wonder how this correlation between the political and the social might
be changed?"
"Well, by the various processes of change that are at work in the
fields of politics and economics at any time, by the emergence of new
forms of economic growth, the rise of different social classes, all
those things that you know perfectly well already, Feliks..."
"Yes, but couldn't one change things much more radically than that? By
forcing certain classes into submission, or by exterminating them
altogether?"
Was Dzerzhinsky alone among Bolsheviks in this?
Zinoviev, September 1918: "To dispose of our enemies, we will have to
create our own socialist terror. For this we will have to train 90
million Russians and have them all on our side. We have nothing to say
to the other 10 million; we'll have to get rid of them."
The Decree on Red Terror: "At this moment it is absolutely vital that
the Chekas be reinforced...to protect the Soviet Republic from its
class enemies, who must all be locked up in concentration camps. Anyone
found to have had any dealings with the White Guard organizations,
plots, insurrections, or riots will be summarily executed, and the
names of all these people, together with the reasons for their
execution, will be announced publicly." As Dzerzhinsky was later to
acknowledge, "The texts of 3 and 5 September finally gave us a legal
right that even Party comrades had been campaigning against until
then---the right immediately to dispose of the counterrevolutionary
rabble, without having to defer to anyone elses' authority at all." "In
an internal circular dated 17 September, Dzerzhinsky, invited all local
Chekas to 'accelerate procedures and terminate, that is, liquidate, any
pending business.' In fact the 'liquidations' had started as early as
31 August. On 3 September Izvestiya reported that in the previous few
days more than 500 hostages had been executed by the local Cheka in
Petrograd. According to Cheka sources, morre than 800 people wre
executed in September in Petrograd alone. The actual figure must be
considerably higher than that. An eyewitness relates the following
details: 'For Petrograd, even a conservative estimate must be 1,300
executions...The Bolsheviks didn't count, in their 'statistics,' the
hundreds of officers and civilians who were executed on the orders of
the local authorities in Kronstadt. In Kronstadt alone, in one night,
more than 400 people were shot. Three massive trenches were dug in the
middle of the courtyard, 400 people were lined up in front of them and
executed one after the other."
At this stage we have looked only at some of the evidence on mens rea,
malice aforethought, found in a few pages of one history. We have
gotten only to the beginning of the Red Terror.
Hunter Watson
The Bolsheviks were not only bloodthirsty, they were filled with
hubris---the self-confidence which stems from the belief that for THEM
"Thou shalt not kill" did not apply:
Peters, in a *newspaper interview* admitted that in the September
massacres "those rather
oversensitive [sic] Cheka members in Petrograd lost their heads and
went a little too far. Before Uritsky's assassination, no one was
executed at all [!]---and believe me, despite anything that people
might tell you, I am not as bloodthirsty as they say---but since then
there have been too many killed, often quite indiscriminately. But then
again, Moscow's only response to the attempt on Lenin's life was the
execution ofa few tsarist ministers." According to Izvestiya again, a
'mere' 29 hostages from the concentration camp were shot in Moscow on 3
and 4 September. Among the dead were two former ministers from the
regime of Tsar Nicholas II, N. Khvostov (internal affairs) and I.
Shcheglovitov (justice). Nonetheless, numerous eyewitness reports
concur that hundreds of hostages wfere executed during the 'September
massacres' in the prisons of Moscow."
Dzerzhinsky founded a new newspaper, Ezhenedelnik VChK (Cheka weekly)
"which was openly intended to vaunt the merits of the secret police and
to encourage 'the just desire of the masses for revenge.' " It was
published for a mere six weeks. The paper "candidly and unashamedly
described the taking of hostages, their intenment in concentration
camps, and their execution. Snippets from that journal:
In Nizhni Novgorod under the devoted Leninist Nikolai Bulganin (head of
the Soviet State from 1954-1957) presided over the the execution of 141
hostages after 31 August "and once took more than 700 hostages in a
mere three days."
In Vyatka the Cheka reported the execution of 23 'ex-policemen,' '8
monarchists,' 28 'members of the Constitutional Democratic Party,' 186
'officers,' and 10 'Mensheviks and Right Social Revolutionaries,' all
in the space of a week.
In Voznesensk the Cheka "reported taking 181 hostages, executing 25
'counterrevolutionaries,' and setting up a concentration camp with
space for 1,000 people."
The Cheka of the small town of Sebezhsk reported shooting "17 kulaks
and one priest, who had celebrated a mass for the bloody tyrant
Nicholas II."
In Tver it was 130 hostages and 39 executions.
In Perm 50 executions.
"This macabre catalogue could be extended considerably; these are
merely a few extracts from the six issues of the *Cheka Weekly*. Other
provincial journals also reported thousands of arrests and executions
in the autumn of 1918. For example:
The single published issue of the "Izvestiya Tsaritsynskoi Gubcheka"
reported the execution of 103 people for the week of 3-10 September.
>From 1-8 November 371 people appeared in the local Cheeka court: 50
were condemned to death, the rest 'to a concentration camp as a measure
of hygiene, as hostages, until the complete liquidation of all
counterrevolutionaray insurrections.'"
"The only issue of Izvestiya Penzenskoi Gubcheka (News of the Penza
Province Cheka) reported, without commentary, that 'in response to the
asassination of Comrade Egorov, a Petrograd worker on a mission in one
of the detachments of the Food Army, 150 White Guards have been
executed by the Cheka. In the future, other, more rigorous measurres
will be taken against anyone who raises a hand in protest against the
iron fist of the proletariat."
"Whatever the exact number of victims may have been that autumn---and
the total reported in the official press alone suggests that at the
very least it must be between 10,000 and 15,000---the Red Terror marked
the definitive beginning of the Bolshevik practice of treating any form
of real or potential opposition as an act of civil war, which, as
Latsis put it, had 'its own laws.'"
"By autumn the local Chekas, now better organized and more motivated by
calls from Moscow for bloodier repressions, went considerably further
and executed more than 100 of the strikers (at a factory) without any
trial."
"The size of these numbers alone---between 10,000 and 15,000 summary
executions in two months---marked a radical break with the practices of
the tsarist regime. For the whole period 1825-1917 the number of death
sentences passed by the tsarist courts (including courts marital)
'relating to political matters' came to only 6, 321, with the highest
figure of 1,310 recorded in 1906, the year of reaction against the 1905
revolution. Moreover, not all death sentences were carried out; a good
number were converted to forced labor. In the space of a few weeks the
Cheka alone had executed two to three times the total number of people
condemned to death by the tsarist regime over ninely-two years.
Bukharin described Dzerzhinsky's Cheka as "...an organization filled
with criminals, sadists, and degenerate elements from the
lumpenproletariat." But diehard proponents of the Cheka soon regained
the upper hand. Among their number, besides Dzerzhinsky, were the major
names in the Party: Yakov Sverdlov, Stalin, Trotsky, and of course
Lenin himself. He resolutely came to the defense of an institution
'unjustly accused of excesses by a few unrealistic
intellectuals...incapable of considering the problem of terror in a
wider perspective.' On 19 December 1918, at Lenin's instigation, the
Central Committee adopted a resolution forbidding the Bolshevik prress
to publish 'defamatory articles about institutions, notably the Cheka,
which goes about its business under particularly difficult
circumstances.' And that was the end of the debate. The 'iron fist of
the dictatorship of the proletariat' was thus accorded its
infallibility. In Lenin's woerds, 'A good Communist is also a good
Chekist.'"
HW
Einde O'Callaghan
> Hunter Watson wrote:
>
>>Hunter Watson wrote:
>>
>>>Hunter Watson wrote:
>>>
>>>>Hunter Watson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Hunter Watson wrote:
>>>>>
Getting so lonely that you've started to talk to yourself, or what? I
suggest you get our a bit more.
Einde O'Callaghan
Hunter Watson
Hunter Watson wrote:
> Hunter Watson wrote:
> > Hunter Watson wrote:
> > > Hunter Watson wrote:
> > > > Hunter Watson wrote:
> > > > > Hunter Watson wrote:
> > > > > > FRAN wrote:
> > > > > > > Hunter Watson wrote:
> > > > > > > > FRAN wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Have you taken the half
> > > > > > > > > > hour necessary to read through Bryan Caplan's Museum of Communism? Just
> > > > > > > > > > a half hour. It's on the screen now.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Yes, some while back. Sounded like a screed to me. I see no solid basis
> > > > > > > > > for thinking any substantial claim is founded in anything emipirical.
Here we speak of only the first few months of the existence of the
regime, not its full 74 years. As to this brief period do you remain
convinced that nothing empirical supports the conclusions of the
historians? After all, Fran, the common law categorizes an admission
against penal interest as so compelling that it goes into evidence
despite the fact that it might be hearsay. When the murderers publish
summaries of their crimes, when their bosses send signed telegrams
(with copies to the archives) demanding the killing of innocent
hostages without trials, when they facilitate the process by destroying
the legal system and replacing it with the "courts" of the secret
police which are filled with "criminals, sadists and degenerates," the
record would appear adequately "empirical". Do you disagree?
Hunter Watson
You're right. Bert and I own apst.
Perhaps you'll be stimulated to put up some Drzezhinsky on the MIA.
Maybe some Yagoda. It obviously needs balance to justify that Section
501 (c) (3) tax deductibility.
FRAN
Hunter
I want to go through this all very carefully, as these issues are
important, but is there some place where I can view the said documents
of copies of same on the net or perhaps in a published printed work?
The instruction to Markin which you cite appears a number of times on
the net, but the source doesn't correspond to anything in my Collected
Works, and looking at the period in question (August 1918 -- the period
up to Lenin being shot by Kaplan) reveals nothing comparable. There's
plenty of hubris and robust language about the kulaks, but nothing
talking about executions, troikas and such like.
There's no question that Lenin saw Civil War as a kill or be killed
kind of affair, as he makes clear in his writings of that very period.
When The Commune was suppressed by Thiers some 40-60,000 people were
killed in a very short space of time, more or less publicly and with
the encouragement of the mainstream press. Socialists said that The
Commune was too liberal and that was what caused the bloodletting by
the right -- I disagree -- but that was the popular view, especially
when there were all sorts of rogue or semi-rogue military forces about.
I'd like to see the records though -- documents that bear out what you
claim.
Fran
Hunter Watson
>
> I want to go through this all very carefully, as these issues are
> important, but is there some place where I can view the said documents
> of copies of same on the net or perhaps in a published printed work?
Fran
The material I have copied (at the keyboard) comes from the first 80 or
so pages of "The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression"
by Stephane Courtois, Nicolas Werth, Jean-Louis Panne, Andrzej
Paczkowski, Karel Bartosek and Jean-Louis Margolin; Harvard, 1999.
Associated with those 80 pages are approximately 112 footnotes. The
notes to the Forward and the Introduction, 43 in number, cite secondary
works. The balance of the footnotes, 69 in number, are for the first
two sub-chapters of "A State Against its People", Nicholas Werth's
portion of the book, viz., "The Iron Fist of the Dictatorship of the
Proletariat" and "The Red Terror". They are a mixture of archival
citations and secondary works. Much of it is in Russian and some is in
French. I did not copy them as it would have been extremely tedious
and, I thought, of questionable use to you. One of them from which a
Dzerzhinsky quote came reads:
"Lenin i VChK: Sbornik dokumentov 1917-1922 (Lenin and the Cheka: A
Collection of Documents, 1917-1922) Moscow: (Hereinafter GARF),
130/2/134/26-27.
It doesn't look here as though that particular collection has been
translated. I suggest that you check out the book, read the Werth
chapter on the Soviet Union and see where it leads you. I have no doubt
whatever that they are reputable scholars. Professor Martin Malia, who
wrote the Introduction says:
"Without pretension to originality, it presents a balance sheet of our
current knowledge of Communism's human costs, archivally based where
possible and elsewhere drawing on the best available seconday evidence,
and with due allowance for the difficulties of quantification. Yet the
very sobriety of this inventory is what gives the book its power; and
indeed, as we are led from country to country and from horror to
horror, the cumulative impact is overwhelming." He goes on to say:
"..the book quietly advances a number of important analytical
points.The first is that Communist regimes did not just commit criminal
acts (all states do so on occasion); they were criminal enterprises in
their very essence: on principle, so to speak, they all ruled
lawlessly, by violence, and without regard for human life."
>
> The instruction to Markin which you cite appears a number of times on
> the net, but the source doesn't correspond to anything in my Collected
> Works, and looking at the period in question (August 1918 -- the period
> up to Lenin being shot by Kaplan) reveals nothing comparable. There's
> plenty of hubris and robust language about the kulaks, but nothing
> talking about executions, troikas and such like.
Some of it I had seen before, quoted in the works of other historians.
That Lenin insisted on implementing terror from the first days in power
is nothing new.
>
> There's no question that Lenin saw Civil War as a kill or be killed
> kind of affair, as he makes clear in his writings of that very period.
The Civil War with the Volunteer (White) Army was secondary to the far
more important civil war behind Red lines which was without question
instigated by the Bolsheviks. Few events in human history have been so
savage. It's there in Black Book.
> When The Commune was suppressed by Thiers some 40-60,000 people were
> killed in a very short space of time, more or less publicly and with
> the encouragement of the mainstream press. Socialists said that The
> Commune was too liberal and that was what caused the bloodletting by
> the right -- I disagree -- but that was the popular view, especially
> when there were all sorts of rogue or semi-rogue military forces about.
None of these historians denies crimes against humanity in other times
and places. The subject of the book is the crimes of Communism in the
20th Century.
>
> I'd like to see the records though -- documents that bear out what you
> claim.
The documents will bear the scholars out. They are not my claims. I've
simply described and quoted the work of experts in the field.
I think I understand the importance of this to you, but it seems all
but inconceivable that professional scholars are manufacturing
quotations and falsely attributing them to Vladimir Lenin. The
underlying "crisis of the intellectuals" was raised by Le Monde in its
review of Black Book. The writer argued that it was inopportune (to
tell the truth) because equating Communism with Nazism removed the
"last barriers to legitimating the extreme right," that is, Le Pen.
Malia points out that "It in no way follows that Communism's criminal
past should be ignored or minimized. Such an argument is only a
variant, in new historical circumstances, of Sartre's celebrated
sophism that one should keep silent about Soviet camps 'pour ne pas
desesperer Billancout' (in order not to throw the auto workers of
Billancout into desapir). To which his one time colleague, Albert
Camus, long ago replied that the truth is the truth, and denying it
mocks the causes both of humanity and of morality." (This is described
in detail in Paul Hollander's "Political Pilgrims," another classic on
this subject.)
Hunter