On this much celebrated day around the world, I repost my mourning for the hundreds of millions that have been brutally tortured, maimed, and murdered in the name of “the social good” and “brotherhood.” Shame on them. In the language of my postmodern critics – this certainly too was a social construction in the most literal sence, finally there is some common ground to be had between us. Of course, the “data” are not objective, right? They are made up by rich white guys.
UPDATE: here is how the May Day celebrations are going around the world today:
Under a gray, threatening Madrid sky that reflected the dark national mood, 25-year Adriana Jaime confided she turned out because she speaks three foreign languages and has a masters degree as a translator – but last worked for what she derided as peanuts in a university research project that was to last three years but was cut to three months. Jaime has been unemployed for six months, and sees her future as grim at best.
…
protesting health care and education spending cuts and other austerity measures.
…
the government is doing nothing to help workers and that the economic crisis is benefiting banks.
…
Many voters fear Sarkozy will erode France’s welfare and worker protections, and see him as too friendly with wealthy. Challenger and poll favorite Francois Hollande has promised high taxes on the rich.
…
In debt-crippled Greece
…
Italian Labor Minister Elsa Fornero insisted on the need to reform labor market laws that make it virtually impossible for employers to fire workers in some situations, discouraging hiring …
…
The DGB umbrella union group… called instead for a “Marshall Plan” stimulus program to revive the depressed economies of crisis-hit eurozone nations
…
Communists and leftists held a separate May Day rally in Moscow that attracted a crowd of about 3,000
…
Another group of left-wing workers later burned a huge effigy of President Benigno Aquino III, depicting him as a lackey of the United States and big business
This would be a nice reminder:
When we oppose subsidies, we are charged with opposing the very thing that it was proposed to subsidize and of being the enemies of all kinds of activity, because we want these activities to be voluntary and to seek their proper reward in themselves. Thus, if we ask that the state not intervene, by taxation, in religious matters, we are atheists. If we ask that the state not intervene, by taxation, in education, then we hate enlightenment. If we say that the state should not give, by taxation, an artificial value to land or to some branch of industry, then we are the enemies of property and of labor. If we think that the state should not subsidize artists, we are barbarians who judge the arts useless.
Here is the old post:
Mourning on May Day
May 1st, 2008 by wintercow20
It is criminal and immoral to celebrate, on this day, the social and economic achievements of the Labor Movement. How can one be proud of the fact that those societies that pursued equality were forced to create a new class of individuals to “enforce it” leading to mass murder on a scale that has never been replicated in human history? In honor of the hundreds of millions who suffered under the crippling, despotic, oppressive regimes known as Communism, National Socialism, or Fascism, and to protect the liberties of all people who walk the earth today, the horror of the socialist regimes must not be forgotten.
I reprint here in full a review of Communism, A History, by Richard Pipes.
Richard Pipes is arguably the world’s foremost experts on the history of the Soviet Union. An Emeritus Professor of History and the former director of the Russian Research Center at Harvard University, Prof. Pipes served as an advisor to President Reagan’s National Security Council in 1981 and 1982. He is the author or co-author of roughly three dozen books. He describes his latest work, Communism, A History, as “an introduction to Communism, and, at the same time its obituary.” That this slim volume succeeds in doing full justice to its vast subject is the product of, and a tribute to, a lifetime of insightful scholarship.
The Ideal
In western thought, the notion of a “Golden Age” of complete social and economic equality is at least as old as Ancient Greece. In the supposed Golden Age, there was great abundance but no violence or conflict, because all property belonged to everyone. It is sometimes asserted that there was such a Golden Age at some point in the distant past. However, as Prof. Pipes observes:
“… the ideal of a propertyless Golden Age is a myth-the fruit of longing rather than memory-because historians, archaeologists, and anthropologists concur that there never was a time or place when all productive assets were collectively owned. All living creatures, from the most primitive to the most advanced, in order to survive must enjoy access to food and, to secure such access, claim ownership of territory.” During the aeons before humans settled down to pursue agriculture, when they lived primarily by hunting and gathering, kinship groups asserted exclusive access to their area, expelling or killing trespassers. Property claims intensified after transition to agriculture…because cultivation is arduous work and its fruits take time to mature.”
More importantly for the present discussion, such a condition of peace and contentment has been held out as an alluring prospect, whether as restoration of the lost and distant past, or as newly constructed perfection. Various philosophers and radical thinkers has toyed with the notion not only of abolishing private property but also that human beings are malleable-that proper instruction and legislation could not only enable but compel people to be virtuous. However, according to Professor Pipes, “Prior to the middle of the 19th Century, the ideal of equality was an aspiration that occasionally produced social violence, but lacked both a theory and a strategy.
The Program
What Karl Marx and his friend, supporter, and confidant Friedrich Engels offered was, according to the author, “a theory that purported to show why the kingdom of equality was not only desirable and feasible, but also inevitable. To advance this claim, they resorted to methods borrowed from the natural sciences, which had gained immense prestige in the 19th Century.”
We will not here indulge in an explication of Marxist “theory” in mind-numbing detail. Suffice it to say that Marx claimed that contests for “ownership of the means of production” was the determining force of history, that industrialization had created a new and dominant class conflict (between “capitalists” and “workers”), that competition between workers and the unemployed would drive down wages, and that competition among capitalists would drive down profits, leading to ever more severe crises of production and consumption.
Relations between employer and employee did become more tenuous and remote when people moved to urban areas to take up industrial pursuits. When most laborers worked the land, the landlords and their tenants had been essentially neighbors and long-term partners. This fact gave some resonance to Marx’s notions among actual workers and their advocates, which the earlier radical pronouncements of philosophers had never be able to find outside intellectual salons.
Marx and Engles’s theories were the basis of the program of the International Workingman’s Association, “The First International,” which they founded in 1864, and such theories remained a staple of Socialist political parties for the next hundred years or so, even as they were overtaken by events.
Few things predicted by Marxism proved to be correct. For example, even well before Marx died, it was evident that, far from decreasing, the wages and living standards of workers were generally rising. That trend has continued up to the present. There were recurrent crises (business cycle contractions), but none brought a collapse leading to revolution. Where there were revolutions, it was not in the most advanced, urban, industrial societies, but in very backward nations where a large majority remained on the land. These developments were explained away: they hadn’t happened yet, “Imperialism” enabled “capitalism” to extend it life, etc.
However it was World War I, that produced the first incontrovertible evidence that Marxists had little understanding of human nature: they were ecstatic when the war broke out, because they believed that “workers” would everywhere refuse to become cannon fodder and unite to overthrow their “oppressors.” Instead, urban workers flocked to the recruiting stations and elected socialist politicians were the most ardent supporters of tax levies and bond issues in support of their countries’ war efforts. Ever since, it has been manifestly apparent that the traditional affinities of language, religion, race, and nationality easily trump any feelings of “international worker solidarity.”
The Regime
Professor Pipes recounts the story of how the monstrous state purportedly founded on the ideals and programs of Marxism came to be. Moving within the relatively marginal and squabbling radical left-wing factions of the time, the Russian exile Lenin (born Vladimir Ulianov) developed his own idiosyncratic variants of Marxist theorizing. He concluded that a revolution spontaneously initiated by “workers” was an impossiblity. Instead, he called for a tightly organized group to bring it about. Lenin implicitly concluded that they, in Professor Pipes’ words, “of necessity had to be intellectuals…Indeed,” Pipes wryly observes, “only one solitary worker ever sat on the executive board of Lenin’s party, and he turned out to be a police spy.”
There was, in fact, no distinction between Socialism and Communism as political movements until Lenin reached this conclusion, rejecting democratic procedures in favor of the establishment of a “dictatorship of the proletariat.” Marx had believed that full communism would be preceded by a transitional phase, during which the old inequalites would be broken down. It was Lenin who labeled this transition period as foreseen by Marx “socialism.” At about the same time, he changed the name of his party to “Communist” from “Social Democratic.”
The rapid sequence of events that brought Lenin to power has been often recounted and Prof. Pipes very ably does so again, stressing how Lenin’s ruthless single mindedness of purpose carried the day against his confused and hapless opponents. Summarizing, he notes:
“Viewing the Bolsheviks’ power seizure from the perspective of history, one can only marvel at their audacity… They saw in the overwhelming majority of Russia’s citizens-the bourgeoisie and the landowners as a matter of principle and most of the peasantry and intelligentsia as a matter of fact-class enemies of the industrial workers, whom they claimed to represent. These workers constituted a small proportion of Russia’s population‑at best 1 or 2 percent…This meant that the new regime had no alternative but to turn into a dictatorship-a dictatorship not of the proletariat but over the proletariat and all the other classes. The dictatorship, which in time evolved into a totalitarian regime, was thus necessitated by the very nature of the Bolshevik takeover. As long as they wanted to stay in power, the Communists had to rule despotically and violently; they could never afford to relax their authority The principle held true of every Communist regime that followed.
“Lenin realized this and felt no qualms about imposing a ruthless despotism. He defined “dictatorship” of any kind, including that of the “proletariat,” as “power that is limited by nothing, by no laws, that is restrained by absolutely no rules, that rests directly on coercion.”‘ He was quite prepared to resort to unlimited terror to destroy his opponents and cow the rest of the population… Violence total and merciless (one of his favorite adjectives) had to clear the ground for the new order.”
Professor Pipes continues with a concise narrative of Communist regimes in Russia and many other countries. Everywhere, violence and terror were essential to keeping all power firmly within the Communists’ grasp. However, the author concludes, “In advocating a regime resting on coercion, Lenin ignored [the fact that] the abstraction called “state” is made up of individuals who, whatever their historical mission, attend also to their private interests.”
So it was that violence and terror, which were designed to change human nature as well as preserve the regimes, were sometimes turned against the “new class” itself. Stalin’s “show trials” in the 1930s, Mao’s “cultural revoultuon,” Pol Pot’s wholesale “cleansing” of the urban and educated population of Cambodia, and any number of other murderous campaigns and purges in Communist societies all failed to resolve this fundamental contradiction. In the final analysis, the author observes:
…Communism failed and is bound to fail for at least two reasons: one, that to enforce equality, its principal objective, it is necessary to create a coercive apparatus that demands privileges and thereby negates equality; and two, that ethnic and territorial loyalties, when in conflict with class allegiances, everywhere and at all times overwhelm them, dissolving Communism into nationalism…
Professor Pipe’s Communism is a very satisfying read. What it lacks is a discussion of why Communism retained its attraction in intellectual circles for so long, especially after it became manifest as perhaps the most despotic system in history and incapable of providing the material benefits it promised. That would be another story well worth recounting.
That is a lot of work, WC. Thanks.
This May 1, where are the defenders of Socialism? The Occupy movement is taking the day off with labor unions. No input today for the beggars.
Of course there was a “Golden Age”, its center was Forbes Field on what’s now the campus of the University of Pittsburgh and the golden boys were those Pirates of 1960, Bill Mazeroski, Roberto Clemente, Don Hoak, Bob Skinner, Harvey Haddix et al. It was a short golden age, but a glorious one.
your ’08 posts are classic
Beat ’em, Bucs, especially the Yankees. Chuck must have looked up Harvey Haddix in his bathroom library. This being the week of happy thoughts, even Phillies fans ruefully remember Roberto Clemente and the fearsome Willie Stargell a decade later.
Progressives should note that the whole world, especially where people are free, has stubbornly been getting better for over around two or three centuries, despite their efforts to serve the interests of tyrants.
In China there was no difference between May Day and any other day except that school was canceled, but the students went to school on Saturday, so it did not really change anything.
Bradley, I do not mean to take a shot at you. However, we can only guess what has happened in China. Under their recent regimes, I can guess they went to school on Saturdays and seven days a week for all we know. These are the children who have survived the one child policy, which has encouraged people to kill their baby girls to limit population growth, an idea enthusiastically promoted by Peter Singer and other ethicists. Bradley, I know that was not your point, and I would not want to hazard a guess about it, except to say that oppressed Asians work harder to better themselves than most, certainly more than the slackers in OWS. And the SEIU, and while we are at it, the NEA, and AFSCME.
My apologies to WC’s international readers. They are our public employee unions.
300162 897799There is noticeably a bundle to know about this. I assume you produced certain good points in capabilities also. 455312
235277 857146An incredibly fascinating examine, I may not agree completely, but you do make some extremely legitimate factors. 747426
70809 249112Sweet site , super pattern , rattling clean and use friendly . 487386
563273 686706I like this post really much. I will undoubtedly be back. Hope that I can go through much more insightful posts then. Will likely be sharing your wisdom with all of my buddies! 796090
310015 561825Woh I like your content , saved to favorites ! . 110860
947412 800591I like this blog so much, saved to bookmarks . 214277
423744 79440Having a look ahead to look you. 767997