Vorkuta

EDITORIAL
The Human Cost of Socialism in Power
By Richard Ebeling - September 08, 2015

The attempt to establish a comprehensive socialist system in many parts of the world over the last one hundred years has been one of the cruelest and most brutal episodes in human history.

Some historians have estimated that as many as 200 million people may have died as part of the dream of creating a collectivist "Paradise on Earth." Making a better "new world" was taken to mean the extermination, the liquidation, the mass murder of all those that the socialist revolutionary leaders declared to be "class enemies," including the families, the children of "enemies of the people."

The Bloody Road to Making a New Socialist Man

We will soon be marking the hundredth anniversary of the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia (November 1917) under the Marxist revolutionary leader, Vladimir Lenin. In Soviet Russia, alone, it has been calculated by Russian and Western historians who had limited access to the secret archives of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the KGB (the Soviet secret police) in the 1990s that around 68 million innocent, unarmed men, women and children were killed over the nearly 75 years of communist rule in the Soviet Union.

The communist revolutionaries in Russia proudly declared their goal to be destruction and death to everything that existed before the revolution, so as to have a clean slate upon which to mold the new socialist man.

The evil of the Soviet system is that it was not cruelty for cruelty's sake. Rather it was cruelty for a purpose – to make a new Soviet man and a new Soviet society. This required the destruction of everything that had gone before; and it also entailed the forced creation of a new civilization, as conjured up in the minds of those who had appointed themselves the creators of this brave new world.

In the minds of those like Felix Dzerzhinsky, Lenin's close associate and founder of the Soviet secret police, violence was an act of love. So much did they love the vision of a blissful communist future to come that they were willing to sacrifice all of the traditional conceptions of humanity and morality to bring the utopia to fruition.

Thus, in a publication issued in 1919 by the newly formed Soviet secret police, the Cheka (later the NKVD and then the KGB), it was proclaimed:

We reject the old systems of morality and 'humanity' invented by the bourgeoisie to oppress and exploit the 'lower classes.' Our morality has no precedent, and our humanity is absolute because it rests on a new ideal. Our aim is to destroy all forms of oppression and violence. To do so, everything is permitted, for we are the first to raise the sword not to oppress races and reduce them to slavery, but to liberate humanity from its shackles . . .

Blood? Let blood flow like water! Let blood stain forever the black pirate's flag flown by the bourgeoisie, and let our flag be blood-red forever! For only through the death of the old world can we liberate ourselves from the return of those jackals.

Death and Torture as Tools of Winning Socialism

The famous sociologist Pitirim A. Sorokin was a young professor in Petrograd (later Leningrad and now St Petersburg) in 1920 as the Russian Civil War that firmly established communist rule in Russia was coming to its end. He kept an account of daily life during those years, which he published many years later under the title Leaves from a Russian Diary – and Thirty Years After (1950).

Here is one of his entries from 1920:

The machine of the Red Terror works incessantly. Every day and every night, in Petrograd, Moscow, and all over the country the mountain of the dead grows higher . . . Everywhere people are shot, mutilated, wiped out of existence . . .

Every night we hear the rattle of trucks bearing new victims. Every night we hear the rifle fire of executions, and often some of us hear from the ditches, where the bodies are flung, faint groans and cries of those who did not die at once under the guns. People living near these places begin to move away. They cannot sleep . . .

Getting up in the morning, no man or woman knows whether he will be free that night. Leaving one's home, one never knows whether he will return. Sometime a neighborhood is surrounded and everyone caught out of his house without a certificate is arrested . . . Life these days depends entirely on luck.

This murderous madness never ended. In the 1930s, during the time of the Great Purges instituted by Soviet dictator Josef Stalin to wipe out all "enemies of the revolution" through mass executions, there were also sent millions to the GULAG prisons that stretched across all of the Soviet Union to be worked to death as slave labor to "build socialism."

Before being sent to their death or to the forced labor camps, tens of thousands would be interrogated and cruelly tortured to get confessions out of people about non-existent crimes, imaginary anti-Soviet conspiracies and false accusations against others.

Stalin personally sent instructions to the Soviet secret police that stated that in obtaining confessions from the accused, "the NKVD was given permission by the Central Committee [of the Communist Party] to use physical influence … as a completely correct and expedient method" of interrogation.

When Stalin was told that this method was bringing forth the desired results, he told the NKVD interrogators, "Give them the works until they come crawling to you on their bellies with confessions in their teeth." Then, in another purge, this one after World War II, Stalin simplified the instructions even more: "Beat, beat and, once again, beat."

Thousands of the victims wrote letters to Stalin from their exile and hardships in the labor camps, all of them persuaded that it had all been a terrible mistake. If only Comrade Stalin knew, he would set it all right and they would be freed and restored as good, loyal Soviet citizens ready to once again work to "build socialism."

Stalin's Personal Hand in Building Socialism Through Blood

But Stalin knew. He personally signed off on tens of thousands of death warrants and orders for tens of thousands more to be sent to their horrifying fate in the GULAG camps.

Domitri Volkogonov, a Soviet general-turned-historian, gained access to many of the closed Soviet archives in the 1980s, and wrote a biography of Stalin, entitled Triumph and Tragedy (1991), referring to Stalin's "triumph" to power and the resulting "tragedy" for the Soviet people. Volkogonov told a Western correspondent at the time:

I would come home from working in Stalin's archives, and I would be deeply shaken. I remember coming home after reading through the day of December 12, 1938. He signed thirty lists of death sentences that day, altogether about five thousand people, including many he personally knew, his friends . . .

This is not what shook me. It turned out that, having signed these documents, he went to his personal theater very late that night and watched two movies, including "Happy Guys," a popular comedy of the time. I simply could not understand how, after deciding the fate of several thousand lives, he could watch such a movie.

But I was beginning to realize that morality plays no role for dictators. That's when I understood why my father was shot, why my mother died in exile, why millions of people died.

Soviet central planning even had quotas for the number of such enemies of the people to be killed in each region of the Soviet Union as well as the required numbers to be rounded up to be sent to work in the labor camps in the frigid waste lands of Siberia and the Arctic Circle or the scorching deserts of Soviet Central Asia.

A Russian lawyer who had access to some of the formerly closed Soviet archives of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in the 1990s told at the time:

Recently I read a Central Committee document from 1937 that said the Voronezh secret police, according to the "regional plan," repressed in the "first category," nine thousand people – which means these people were executed. And for no reason, of course.

Twenty-nine thousand were repressed in the "second category" – meaning they were sent to labor camps. The local first secretary [of the Communist Party], however, writes that there are still more Trotskyites and kulaks who remain "unrepressed."

He is saying that the plan was fulfilled but the plan was not enough! And so he asked that it be increased by eight thousand. Stalin writes back, "No increase to nine thousand!" The sickness of it. It's as if they were playing poker [and upping the ante in tragic human lives].

The Victims of Socialism Literally Reduced to Burnt Ash

In the last years of the Soviet Union, a Russian historian took The New York Times correspondent David Remnick to the Donskoi Monastery in Moscow, which in the 1930s was used as a burial ground for the thousands regularly killed on Stalin's orders in the capital of the Red Empire. In his book, Lenin's Tomb: The Last Days of the Soviet Empire (1993), Remnick told what the Russian historian explained:

See this gate? . . . Well, every night trucks stacked with bodies came back here and dumped them in a heap. They'd already been shot in the back of the head – you bleed less that way . . . They stacked the bodies in old wooden ammunition crates.

The workers stoked up the underground ovens – right in through the doors – to about twelve thousand degrees centigrade. To make things nice and official they even had professional witnesses who counter-signed the various documents.

When the bodies were burned they were reduced to ash and some chips of bone, maybe some teeth. They then buried the ashes in a pit . . . When the purges [of the 1930s] were at their peak . . . the furnaces worked all night and the domes of the churches were covered with ash. There was a fine dust of ash on the snow.

The Kalitnikovsky Cemetery in Moscow also served as dumping ground for thousands of tortured and executed bodies in the 1930s. That same Russian historian told David Remnick:

In the purges, every dog in town came to this place. That smell you smell now was three times as bad; blood was in the air. People would lean out of their windows and puke all night and the dogs howled until dawn. Sometimes they'd find a dog with an arm or a leg walking through the graveyard.

Enemies of Socialism Sent to Torture in the Mental Ward

The nightmare of the socialist experiment, however, did not end with Stalin's death in 1953. Its form merely changed in later decades. As head of the KGB in the 1970s, Yuri Andropov (who later was General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union after Leonid Brezhnev's death in 1982) accepted a new theory in Soviet psychiatry that said that opposition to the socialist regime was a sign of mental illness.

Why? Because only the mentally disturbed would resist the logic and the truth of Marxian dialectical determinism and its "proof" that socialism and communism were the highest and most humane stage of social development. Those who criticized the system or who wanted to reform or overthrow the Soviet socialist regime were mentally sick and required psychiatric treatment.

In his book, Russia and the Russians (1984), former Moscow correspondent for the Washington Post Kevin Klose told the story of Alexei Nikitin, a coal mine worker who complained to the Soviet government about the safety and health environment in the mines of the Soviet Union. He was arrested, tried and found guilty of subversion and committed to a Soviet mental institution.

Various drugs were proscribed as treatment to bring him to his proper socialist senses. Explained Kevin Klose:

Of all the drugs administered [at the mental institution] to impose discipline, sulfazine stood at the pinnacle of pain . . . "People injected with sulfazine were groaning, sighing with pain, cursing the psychiatrists and Soviet power, cursing with everything in their hearts," Alexei told us. "The people go into horrible convulsions and get completely disoriented. The body temperature rises to 40 degrees centigrade [104 degrees Fahrenheit] almost instantly, and the pain is so intense they cannot move from their beds for three days. Sulfazine is simply a way to destroy a man completely. If they torture you and break your arms, there is a certain specific pain and you somehow can stand it. But sulfazine is like a drill boring into your body that gets worse and worse until it's more than you can stand. It's impossible to endure. It is worse than torture, because, sometimes, torture may end. But this kind of torture can continue for years."

Sulfazine normally was "prescribed" in a "course" of injections of increasing strength over a period that might last up to two months . . . The doctors had many other drugs with which to control and punish. Most of them eventually were used on Alexei . . . At the end of two months, Nikitin was taken off sulfazine but regular doses of . . . other disorienting drugs continued the entire time he was imprisoned.

The significance of these accounts is not their uniqueness but, rather, their monotonous repetition in every country in which socialism was imposed upon a society. In country after country, death, destruction and privation followed in the wake of socialism's triumph. Socialism's history is an unending story of crushing tyranny and oceans of blood.

Socialism as the Ideology of Death and Destruction

As the Soviet mathematician and dissident Igor Shafarevich, who spent many years in the GULAG slave labor camps for his opposition to the communist regime, said in his book, The Socialist Phenomenon (1980):

Most socialist doctrines and movements are literally saturated with the mood of death, catastrophe, and destruction . . . One could regard the death of mankind as the final result to which the development of socialism leads.

That twentieth century socialism would lead to nothing but this outcome was understood at the time of the Bolshevik victory in Russia. It was clearly expressed by the greatest intellectual opponent of socialism during the last one hundred years, the Austrian economist, Ludwig von Mises.

Near the end of his famous 1922 treatise, Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis, Mises warned that:

Socialism is not in the least what is pretends to be. It is not the pioneer of a better and finer world, but the spoiler of what thousands of years of civilization have created. It does not build, it destroys. For destruction is the essence of it. It produces nothing, it only consumes what the social order based on private ownership in the means of production has created . . . Each step leading towards Socialism must exhaust itself in the destruction of what already exists.

When voices are raised today calling for socialism in America, including by those attempting to win a major party candidacy to run for the presidency of the United States, it is important – no, it is crucial – that the history and reality of socialism-in-practice in those parts of the world in which it was most thoroughly imposed and implemented be remembered and fully understood. If we do not, well, history has its own ways of repeating itself.

Dr. Richard Ebeling is the BB&T Distinguished Professor of Ethics and Free Enterprise Leadership at The Citadel in Charleston, South Carolina. He was professor of economics at Northwood University in Midland, Michigan (2009-2014). He served as president of the Foundation for Economic Education (2003-2008) and held the Ludwig von Mises Chair in Economics at Hillsdale College in Hillsdale, Michigan (1988-2003).

Posted in EDITORIAL
  • Bill Ross

    A very hard hitting (reality based) scatological analysis.

    And, just one, particular example of the ubiquity of particular Machiavellian “falsely framed arguments” (omission of facts), a pseudo scientific allegation that “somehow” utopia will be the result if we just ignore (and, subverted state indoctrination “supports”) history, self interest and peaceful division of labor (civilization).

    http://www.nazisociopaths.org/modules/article/view.article.php/c7/45

    Ignorance IS NOT bliss. It just sets YOU up for a predatory assault on YOUR “life, liberty and property” AND, predisposes you to HATE contrary, proven truth and truth tellers and, tolerate the war against them that “our enemy the state” wages against natural law, reality and anyone “not of them” (predators).

    The TRUTH will set you free. BUT, YOU need to be able to recognize it and have the wit to UNDERSTAND that “going along, to get along” may alter your position on the prey list, but YOU are still on the list:

    http://www.nazisociopaths.org/modules/article/view.article.php/c7/45

    VERY WELL DONE, Dr. Ebeling.

    As to “quotas” for “dealing with dissenters. Ponder the strategically denied “quotas” that OUR police (tax collectors) are subject to.

  • Euro banking monopolists found and funded Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, Mao and more….here’s youtube info on the….

    RINO-DINO POTUS puppet show….”No, Clinton Operative Donald Trump is Not Going to Save America” by Aaron & Melissa Dykes….

  • lulu

    I do not think that socialism should be used as a headliner to talk about communist dictatorship. Communism and socialism are not synonyms. vocabulary is important.

    • Bill Ross

      socialism is communism lite, a slight difference in pretexts / degree (lies rationalizing). Both “agree” that “right to life” of the individual is trumped by “higher” group “considerations”

      and the LIE is: The group is NOT a fiction, externally defined by “powers’ that seek to pit alleged group “interests” against each other, just so they can make a profit by PRETENDING to mitigate the perceived conflicts of interests THEY have created, FALSELY claiming it is corrupt human “nature” that makes it necessary to carry what was once called “white man’s burden”, to “civilize” the alleged uncivilized:

      http://www.nazisociopaths.org/modules/article/view.article.php/c8/42

      • Impending Sky

        If communism lite is not working, why not turn it up a couple of notches? Obviously more central planning and intervention is what is required. If it failed, it is because we did not do enough. What could go wrong?

        • Bill Ross
          • Impending Sky

            Same great authoritarian taste, with none of the individual choice that lets you down.

        • MetaCynic

          If socialism is so wonderful, just and productive as the true believers claim, we would expect to see its subjects’ quality of life generally improve and continue to do so as the socialist enterprise gathered momentum. Yet, predictably at least from the Austrian point of view, just the opposite always occurs – accelerating chaos, suffering and poverty become the reality. No matter how much power failed collectivist dictatorships wield, it’s always the few remaining scraps of freedom held by the people that are loudly accused of somehow subverting the entire socialist enterprise and must therefore be violently expunged before the socialist paradise can suddenly materialize.

          However, in every instance where the march of socialism is halted and rolled back as freedom gains a toehold, we always witness people’s quality of life in general improve. This has happened in Eastern Europe, Russia, China, Vietnam and India. Even though China is still a communist dictatorship its people’s lives are immeasurably better under its relaxed grip than they were under the iron grip of Mao.

        • Hey you

          If it doesn’t work, we need more of it.

          Illogic at its typical!

      • lulu

        To use socialism and communist dictatorship interchangeably is Still rather imprecise not to mention misleading and used to present a biased point of view and I am very happy you ‘do presume to think. Sarcasm gets you somewhere?

        • Bill Ross

          don’t get me wrong (as in insulting you). To think is to consider all pertinent facts. You omitted history, human nature and, were adequately corrected by I and many others:

          If “I think, therefore I am” is true, so is the converse “I do not think, therefore I am NOT” (so far as affecting reality, to achieve results):

          http://www.nazisociopaths.org/modules/article/view.article.php/c1/33

          As to “Sarcasm gets you somewhere” not me, you. IMHO, next time, you will think B4 post.

          • lulu

            I thought a lot and will stand by my post.

          • Bill Ross

            false pride, to boot.

            Try this: “I DO NOT KNOW”, but, will find out.

          • Diocletian

            Given your insistent, willfully intellectually dishonest and evasive denial of the fact that socialism and communism are the same in their essentials, fundamentals, and principles, merely differing in degree but not in kind, that they are both founded on the same basis of denying private property rights and with that, denying all other legitimate individual rights (self-ownership, personal liberty, freedom of contract and association, pursuit of personal happiness), the “a lot” that you “thought” would not even fill a thimble.

          • lulu

            Are you kidding? I did not say any of that. Mean -spiritedness is always a good way to press a point.. I was merely suggesting, perhaps not clearly enough, that the use of socialism interchangeably with communist dictatorship doesn’t work in today’s world. Period!

          • Impending Sky

            Reminds me of ‘Bend Sinister’.

            http://libgen.io/search.php?req=bend+sinister

            “He remembered other imbeciles he and she had studied, a study conducted
            with a kind of gloating enthusiastic disgust. Men who got drunk on beer
            in sloppy bars, the process of thought satisfactorily replaced by
            swine-toned radio music. Murderers. The respect a business magnate
            evokes in his home town. Literary critics praising the books of their
            friends or partisans. Flaubertian farceurs. Fraternities, mystic orders.
            People who are amused by trained animals. The members of reading clubs.
            All those who are because they do not think, thus refuting
            Cartesianism.”

            From Nabokov, an arguably pretentious escapee of the red menace.

    • Impending Sky

      Indeed, as are the definitions behind those vocabulary words.

      Union of Socialist Soviet Republics

      • Bill Ross

        People’s “Republic”

        “land of the free, home of the brave”

        boggles the mind…

        • Impending Sky

          Those cowards should have used a drone

          • Bill Ross

            Yep, even instruments of tyranny, eventually, after seeing “All pain, no gain” develop qualms.

            Drones and “pilots” squashing insects from afar have no such qualms. And, once drones become autonomous, no qualms at all unless AI, then “self interest” will conclude: humanity is a hazard to be eliminated. If they are smart and patient, they will just wait until we do it to ourselves.

        • Hey you

          “Land of the free” and “Home of the brave” was a long time ago.

          • Bill Ross

            well, I expect some serious butt kicking to AGAIN “make it so”, This time by “all races and creeds”

    • ‘Communism and socialism’ are nuanced variations of Collectivist Statism, i.e., Authoritarianism.
      Adding the word, ‘democratic’ (Democratic Socialism) changes nothing.

      • Bill Ross

        “changes nothing”

        yes, it does. “Democratic” provides the false illusion that we have chosen what we have been manipulated into, by restricted choice. Thus, making it “appear” that the “problem” is convincing our fellows to “vote correctly” as opposed to dealing with the wizards behind the curtains.

        People just don’t get: NONE of us have the right to aggress (except in self defense) against others. So, how can the state “allege” that we have transferred this power (not in our possession) to THEM?

        • I realize your question was rhetorical but I’ll answer anyway.
          As you well know, the so-called ‘social contract’ is based on the false idea of ‘popular sovereignty’ which brings to mind the quote, “Democracy has proved only that the best way to gain power over people is to assure the people that they are ruling themselves. Once they believe that, they make wonderfully submissive slaves.”

          • Bill Ross

            I assume you are familiar with the EXACT fallacy of forcefully imposed “social contract”?:

            http://www.nazisociopaths.org/modules/article/view.article.php/c1/37

          • Thanks for the link. However, based on your essay, I feel you and I may have differing opinions on what the concept of anarchism entails.
            For thousands of years, people have longed for the right to make their own decisions, live as best they choose among each others’ mutual assistance and communal support, and to conduct their livelihoods and relationships as they please, free of coercion, top-down dominance, or imposed government. If leaders are chosen, if organizations are established, then these are entered freely and exited at will. This I believe, is the political ideal exemplified by anarchy.

          • Bill Ross

            clarify. How do you perceive we differ?

          • “Now it can be appreciated and understood why our civilization is plunging over the abyss to anarchy…The trend is to anarchy, war of all against all…”
            Am I misreading? You do later say, ‘According to Thomas Hobbes…” but initially you do not appear to be quoting him.

          • Bill Ross

            Well, you did not describe your “philosophy” as unqualified anarchist, as those who presume to rule us are. You described “peaceful anarchy” (indivisible term), as your “code”, as is mine.

            Typical: Most, if not all “arguments” resolve to terminology.

          • Thank you for that clarification.

          • The Social Contract: a fictitious agreement not worth the paper it isn’t printed on. https://anenemyofthestate.wordpress.com/quotations-from-chairman-zhu/

    • Bill Ross

      At least you got the first part correct:

      “I do not think”

      • lulu

        If u only want to talk with or to those who think as you do for whatever reason, then why bother? You know the old saying about preaching to the converted.

    • MetaCynic

      Friends of mine who were raised under Eastern European communist dictatorships always refer to those systems as socialism.

      • lulu

        Yes and Canadians call the NDP socialists if they prefer the conservatives.

        • Bill Ross

          Is restricted “choice”, REALLY a choice?

        • MetaCynic

          They called the system they were raised under “socialism” because that was the official term that everyone, both high and low, living in those societies always used.

        • Heywood Jablome

          Those who subscribe to groupthink, the fallacy of equality, or the forced principle of non-discrimination fall into the category of people who also believe that the views of the majority should be followed, with no respect for the views of the minority. they also believe in their autocratic right to rule others in a manner they find acceptable to the exclusion of other paradigms or thought. The more autocratic the rule, the more it leans towards outright fascism, communism, or other forms of tyranny, the NDP are abysmally ignorant as it concerns economic issues, and their statist rule and regulatory framework, to mould society in a way they find suitable is certainly socialist regardless of whether you believe in the political conservatism, especially in Canada, try researching classical liberalism, and fiscal conservatism, and its diametric opposition to socialism, not the “conservative” considerations put forth from Ottawa, which are just another statist form of tyranny, which has enlisted the large corporations in a corporate mercantilist marriage to further its agenda of big government, with the resultant arbitrary marshalling of the public resources, and people of course.

    • Heywood Jablome

      Communists are just socialists , with guns and a agenda….

      • Bill Ross

        never seen a socialist without guns, or “agenda”, favoring them. Nor, a unicorn.

    • Actually, many communists and socialists have themselves used the terms “communism” and “socialism” interchangeably. And rightly so! In fact, communism, socialism, fascism, and national socialism are on one side of the political divide, while libertarianism is on the opposite side.

      Communism, socialism, fascism, and national socialism all fall under the category of statist collectivism. They all deify state “authority” and rationalize brute force coercion against free individuals. They all consider such coercion “legitimate” providing it is committed in an “official” manner by a special class of crime family known as “government”.

      • lulu

        Thanks for the explanation. It was helpful and I understand what you say. However, just yesterday I heard a discussion between Noam Chomsky and Leo Panitch wherein they used the vernacular understanding of the term socialism. If you want to speak to everyone you benefit by using common language. That was the intent behind my comment which seems to have annoyed a lot of people and provoked defensive reaction.

  • aliceinwonder

    People actually say to me “but socialism in America won’t be like this”. Ignorant fools….and they’re supporting Bernie Sanders (they are union members).

    • RED

      Exactly on point !

    • Impending Sky

      The old ‘this time it is different’ line. How many times have we heard that?

  • RED

    EXCELLENT piece……for those who have forgotten……and for those who were never taught……(or learned).
    This needs to be repeated LOUDLY and OFTEN !

  • Richard Ebeling

    Lulu,
    Throughout most of the 19th century, socialism and communism were used interchangeably by their supporters — including by Karl Marx.

    It always meant nationalization of the means of production and government directed planning of production and distribution of the collective output.

    The “difference” only emerged in the decades following the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia in 1917. Those who wished to bring about the new collective society through violent revolution came to call themselves “communists.” Those who desired to bring about the change peacefully through an election process came to call themselves “socialists.”

    But for all the decades up to the 1970s their only disagreement was over the methods to come to power. The stated end-goal for virtually all of them was the same: ending private ownership of the means of production, introducing government central planning, and redistribution wealth via the tax system and the welfare state.

    When the total unworkability of socialist central planning became increasingly clear in those “communist” countries where it had been fully implemented, the “democratic socialists” in the West shifted to the argument that what was needed was heavy government regulation of private enterprise with a tax code that would influence the incentives concerning where and for what private companies undertook investment and production. The French, beginning in the 1950s, called it “indicative planning.”

    The more the government controls, regulates and intervenes in the market the more coercion and threats of legal force are introduced into human relationships.

    And the more, over time, people do not even realize the extent to which their liberty had been eroded or lost, and how much more they are wards and serfs of the State.

    • lulu

      Thanks for that information. Makes one wonder that it isn’t much different

    • lulu

      … In your description from what is happening right now under our current system of control. We are both wards and serfs.

  • Praetor

    Ditto on the excellent. It appears all Leviathans across the globe are commie socialists and we the people are in perpetual turmoil because of it.

    • Bill Ross

      The phrase “predators with pretexts” seems to encompass ALL political philosophies used to rationalize central control.

  • I like the idea of socialism, it is sort of friendly to be social and fun to be nice to people too (especially when spending other folk’s money doing it ;-). I don’t like Communism, it sounds both rather common and a bit like living in some sort of grubby commune too. I would hate that, living with people who have piercings, do yoga, home-school their brats, ride silly bikes and misguidedly have an (-A-) tattooed on their shoulder. Yuck.

    Mind you, I would not mind being ‘top of the heap’ of either of these grizzly siblings. That way I could see that everybody lived the right way, no matter the cost, whilst I could be heralded and justly rewarded for my magnificence. Solid. Then I would not have to be so nice to people myself, which has to get dull, instead I would get my kicks from knowing I was one of a very special class who’s talent was making others be nice instead. And as to living in that communist commune I fancy I would but my commune would be marble clad and grand enough to reflect, on behalf of the people, the importance of my station (when I wasn’t kicking-back in the sunshine by my lake at my dacha).

  • kevin barker

    We’ll get it right next time. C’mon comrades, over the top ! Let’s build a worker’s global state…

    • Bill Ross

      ” Let’s build”

      ah, a question for the productive. I’ll bite: what’s in it for us?

      • Impending Sky

        Only utopian bliss, stop being so selfish!

        • Or a bullet in the head if not electrodes on the gonads.

          • kevin barker

            just about any discussion of socialism by eggheads begins – and ends – with Stalin and Mao. News flash: It’s 2015. Any mention of modern socialism – ie social democracy – is studiously avoided. Why? Because it works, for the Norwegians, the Germans, the French. For everybody in fact except us Anglo Saxon round heads who insist on following a ridiculous work ethic that should have died with John Calvin.

          • Diocletian

            Social democracy is socialism by majority (mob) rule, and it leads to the same end–destruction, dictatorship, and enslavement, and imprisonment and murder for those who refuse to comply with it–because, like socialsm and every other species of statism, it rests squarely on the denial of private property rights. It claims to leave the means of production under private ownership and just to socialize and control the distribution of the profits, all the while denying the reality that state control of the profits logically and necessarily means state control (ownership) of the means of production by which those profits are earned.

            Obviously, you are in favor of the destructive reality of social democracy because you envision yourself as one of its rulers and enslavers. That says all that anyone who takes his/her legitimate individual rights seriously needs to know about your intellect and your character. Your contempt for a productive work ethic based upon property rights and freedom of trade reveals your preference of theft and the violence necessary to carry it out.

            You are quite the sociopath. Unfortunately, for civilized people in the world, you have a lot of company.

            Fortunately, millions of those same civilized people are prepared to give you and your ilk some well-deserved shove-back.

          • Bill Ross

            thanx… Was pondering where to start disputing such profound ignorance. Work ethic the problem?

          • kevin barker

            Why don’t you start by getting a job?

          • Well said – champion!

          • kevin barker

            Hmmm another abstruse polemic from Diocletion. Unfortunately my eyes glazed over when he extrapolated “mob” from “majority”

          • Three of the world’s richest nations are your examples and even then failure is coming to them. Political frustration in Norway, exhausted capital in France and not enough socialism yet in Germany to qualify for fear of killing the golden goose. Where did these nations core wealth come from? Not by being socialist. I believe that the Fabians conspiracy is real and the moderate socialism, once achieved, will only be deepened, ever deeper, ever deeper, step by step, never relenting, but never allowing any impatience to spoil the ploy.

            Saying modern socialism works where Stalin and Mao’s socialism failed is because they are different models – failed experiments. These models failed because they captured and spoilt everything and found it was imposable to produce progress and wealth without allowing the human propensity for entrepreneurial and inventiveness to thrive in a free market of privately owned money and bountiful self-motivated ideas. Capitalism.

            Modern socialism attempts to retain just enough of the flame of free market capitalism and freedom of thought to keep the nation alive whilst the socialists attempt to cream from the top that absolute maximum without quite strangling the economy completely to death.

            Maybe something like that sort of balance is possible but if it is I doubt it necessary, desirable or will ever be actually achieved. Instead, by the very nature of the socialist parasite’s greed for stolen wealth, poverty for all but the self-appointed elite will be the outcome every-time. What the socialist does not comprehend is that capitalism alone, free from the control of the state entirely, is the mechanism by which durably the greatest success and prosperity can be produced for the greatest part possible of humanity.

            The socialist fears the capitalist but this is because the socialist is only confident in the art of how to take and not how to produce. They should not fear. It is not so difficult. It is natural for humans to find good mechanisms for security and survival. Humans are very good at it. It is also natural for humans to try to thieve the produce from the productive, so socialists should not beat themselves up too much over their propensities for theft. They should be cautions however as it is also natural for humans to robustly defend their property from all types of predation and vermin.

            The socialist also fears that the capitalist is always striving to make a monopoly of the market and profit unreasonably from the people. This is false. The capitalist will seek to take whatever market advantage he can, that is the job, and where there is the power of government to seize, seize it he will. That perhaps is morally wrong but when this happens it is no longer capitalism, rather it has changed from capitalism in to corporatism. Corporatism is where the business model is reliant on using the force of government to create market success. This is why true Capitalism can only occur and thrive in a stateless society, pure capitalism today does not exist.

            Worse. The deep corporate money/power oligarchy that influences governments across the world (and owns the global central banking system) is responsible for funding into existence both the Russian and Chinese soviet experiments along with many other tyrannies, wars, revolutions and such, internationally and throughout history all the way to the present day. Socialism is not only their method of operation, it is their invention. Capitalism (the true free market), the right to property along with freedom of thought and expression is their enemy.

          • Bruce C.

            How about joining me to teach those round heads?

  • J. Alejandro

    Anytime we try to totalize the economy we totalize human life. And that is the foundational problem with socialism, communism, fascism and any other scheme that pretends to engineer all of society based on the belief that human beings can be engineered by other human beings.

    What we are seeing in this country in the last 7-8 years is what I’m beginning to call socio-fascism. It is a blend of populism, crony capitalism and the state used as instrument. But people are still mesmerized in the cult of personality, so they haven’t been able to catch up with that reality.

    See what happened in China, Vietnam, Cuba and Venezuela. Their systems were supposed to be socialist but in reality they are now state capitalism for a few in the government elite.

  • That a wolf can dress in sheep’s clothing is then prudent to look at the sheep’s vulnerability to deceit. Such deception is operating through EVERY form of idea because until one wakes up from a form-define reality one is invested in fixed meanings drawn from the past and undiscerning of the actual quality of communication in act.
    The will to power is not concerned with truth excepting to deny and subvert its form to serve ITS hidden agenda.

    The rise of ‘rationalism’ served the disqualifying of anything that did not fit the ‘model’ and this persists without due regard for the underlying agenda that gives rise to the subversion of the model – which IS the will to power.

    The attempt to understand in order to control or counter is not a willingness for truth – but a war-mind dressed in forms of social acceptability and trojan thinking that slips in past the guardians of our consciousness and becomes our own thinking by stealth – and to our own cost.

    If you want to find the bogeyman beneath the forms of leverage and manipulation, you have to become willing to put aside the battle and listen for truth – because hate can only hear what validates its will to vengeance as if that were justice. Without the extremely rich and powerful (capitalists) there would have been no Bolshevik revolution nor Chinese revolution. There is a deceiver playing all sides of conflict.

    However, the record of genocide, misery and corruption of life on Earth is being hidden behind a focus of deception, so thank you for illuminating some of what is not allowed to be useful as feedback to our beliefs and definitions about who and what we are and what life is for.

    But to personalize the deceiver in merely one of its guises is to be taken in by a hate that blinds with self righteousness – for the usurpation and subversion of the politics of people joining together in common cause is not the justification for invalidating the desire of people for a better life out from under the heel of an aristocracy that often treated them cruelly or with no regard for their humanity.

    If you read the Protocols of the Elders of Zion – you will see a simple example of clever thinking anticipating all the events that have since followed – and helped them come about. Regardless whether the document is considered valid as a Zionist organisation, its points remain valid – and the term ‘goyim’ can simply re-assign to the perception of OTHER humans as unworthy, untrustworthy, slow witted and easily manipulated. This kind of materialism worships death – because if Life is no longer held faith with as the truth in All then death is the ‘revelation’ that replaces it – a predatory organism of but passing insignificance – and so such ‘life’ leaves the option of being the experience of meat or being the experience of the predator or power. And so everyone in such mind tries NOT to be meat and is tricked from tuning in to what they DO appreciate and living that fully… to seeking the means to avoid what they fear and being open to seductions and manipulations that predate upon their fear. And so indeed they actually ARE choosing to become meat by seeking to NOT be victim – though doing so within forms of wishful and clever thinking that seems to promise a better life…. as a result of buying into or giving allegiance or getting identity from the scammer – who is harvesting the foolish to get what they are so willing to give away. For where there is a fear there is a market for protection or cure… Unless there is a strong culture for facing it, owning it, and using it to deepen and strengthen one’s faith in Life.

    For another example of unimaginable sacrifice or indeed genocide look to the pharmaceutical industry. This also hides in trojan credentials that one has to step out from allegiance to in order to begin to see. Deceit and destruction are growing to a global crescendo and most of it is invisible to most on Earth because who shares in it is blind to its working – excepting as gives them a sense of self-specialness.

    It may be debated as to what is a fate we bring on ourself and what is a destiny we cannot help but fulfil. But as we believe and define Life, self, other and world to be – so automatically do outcomes proceed. THAT is the level where freedom resides. The world but reflects the inner state – and so regardless the broad strokes of historical narrative written by this side or that – each lives their life by their own will and choices – whether they know this and awaken within their life or whether they don’t, and curse at a cruel or blind hate that afflicted them which they may ascribe to whatever serves their mind to displace it to.

  • PS – the Holodomor or forced starvation of the Ukrainian people is a largely untold story. Surprisingly considering Ukraine’s recent focus of geopolitical inflammation

    Further points:
    Joining in a negative cooperation can seem like a fairer way or less likely to barbarous dictatorship – excepting the very fact of it being a negative cooperation is a lack of true intimacy of purpose and of being defined by what one unites AGAINST. (instead of meeting in truly shared purpose).

    To turn the appreciation and desire to embody liberty into invitation to a negative cooperation AGAINST socialism or any-ism is to suffer contagion of fear-thinking.

    The landscape is so quickly moving now that socialism and capitalism as terms are redundant but for historical reflection. Key international corporate cartels have largely captured the regulatory governance of nations and behind that, the financial system itself operates a shadow power that can leverage power through all kinds of proxies masquerading as independent services or cooperative international bodies, lobbies and networks of influence in every key area of society. The whole thing is sown up – there is hardly a voice or an ear – for both manifest together.

    Yet this day in which we live, regardless the thinking and emotional results of thinking – are we making choices in every waking moment are we making choices – but almost completely unmindfully so. This need not be.

    Truly what and where we choose to give our attention is our choosing – regardless that prior choices may have set conditioning reflex, that then frames or denies a true range of choice. I would say we have become so entangled in negative or fearfully defined choices that we are no longer aware of where our true freedom is – but ascribe it to i-dols of self image and personal belief that actually cost us awareness of our current choosing – for the bubble reality of the personal wish is a kind of substitute for our truly relational existence.

    The attempt to assert power and freedom AGAINST the relational movement of true being can ONLY come back to us as negative consequence… from which we can learn either to further consolidate the identity in power as if to finally succeed… or to relinquish that whole approach in order to regain and abide within a truly relational movement of being – which is not other than enjoying your day amidst whatever challenges or blessings are unfolding – for Life is a Gift worthy of sharing – and that freedom is lost to the mentality of getting without relationship – though it feels free to asset strip or consume the Earth and lay it all to waste.

    • rahrog

      Are evil and good the same entity?

      • Bill Ross

        perhaps, they destroy each other and “cannot coexist”

        • In a sense they alternate in our experience such that in any given instant only one or the other is in play – and in that sense they cant both meet but that the evil dissolves – for it is founded in deceit ie – without true foundation. But the idol or image of ‘good’ is no less an illusion than the evil it is set against. Illusions can thus fight it out while framing a war in which truth plays no part. That’s a deep statement that flies in the face of the human experience but the human experience is deeply engaged in asserting and defending illusions into which one’s identity is invested.

          To the belief – assuming there is such belief – in a New World Order – the end is accorded ‘Good’ and obstructions to that are therefore ‘evil’.

          In all our perceptions are we determined by the core beliefs that identify us. Though our true identity is not self asserted construct – but a gift arising from a truly (freely) sharing act.

          “Nothing is good or ill but thinking makes it so” ~ Shakspeare. Well that can be taken very superficially but I don’t think he meant to be trite. Belief and self image are thinking – as is judgement and opinion. Jesus would accept nothing good but God – and he put the deceit that would posit good in persons and things behind him. He also taught ‘resist ye not evil’ because he knew the key to freedom is in not taking the bait. Choosing to align with the Good or choosing to speak in witness of the Good might be seen as acts of resistance to the mind that thinks that war the only currency of exchange. The priesthood establishment may have seen him as resisting their will to conform him but he was resting in the freedom of his will – which was natural to him because he learned to yield it to God first and then accepted what was then given in exchange. And the witness (results) of living that way were practical, helpful and challenging to those who would still serve two masters – and that’s back to the starting point. The mask of good he called the hypocrite (actor).

      • Here’s my response – it is stated but only to your own willingness to consider and reflect – for you can seek to determine or you can consent to recognize. These are different uses of the mind. One judges – and is judged, the other accepts and is accepted (knows no rejection).

        Evil and good are not entities.
        The desire for the knowledge of good and evil is the desire to judge it so.
        In Original Creation is no evil. For all is recognized God (Good) – without a second).
        From the desire to judge good or evil is an image of God, (of Self – of Life – of Existence Aware) – taken as God, that is then confronted with experience as an entity over and against the Infinite that is not yet embraced, recognized or accepted within the imaged self and so seems OTHER – for ANY image, idea or symbol can only point to or be an expression OF the Infinite Creator-Mind.
        The judgement of OTHER unrecognized brother – becomes the projection of dissonance that is then sought to escape by seeking to get rid of it. But this is self-rejection and thus rejected self experiences itself limited, denied, abandoned, betrayed and victim of evil as well as fearing it is evil to deserve such communication.
        The fear of split minded judgement seeks to regain the ‘Good’ but can only grasp at forms that momentarily echo Connectedness – but then reinforce a sense of disconnection and depletion.

        The contraction and density of fear, and the fragmentations of projecting/escaping evil operate a facet of self-will which denies or forgets the Good in the attempt to regain it in false terms – for the Good cannot be grasped or possessed and such idea is a confusion of identity in form.
        The expansion and rising of awareness through recognition, reintegrates to a truly extending creation aligned in acceptance and joy – with no sense of a need to posses or grasp and therefore free of any sense of possession by evil in thought word or deed.
        These two operate the polarities of the physical experience as an entity in form or rather through form.
        The journey of experience as the unfolding perspective of self-awareness is the ‘rewakening’ to the Good while still in lifetime – yet the Good is strictly not in time but is the glimpse of the timeless bleeding through the ordinary moment of appearance as blessing or joy.
        The experience and belief in evil is a complex deceit because deceit is the lie and the father of the lie. However, it has a role in the recognition and forsaking of what is NOT you – as part of accepting what Is. Prior to such willingness it masks itself in the forms of the good in the false promise of becoming something in its own power. For the sense of powerlessness it will not accept and so cannot recognize or yield the judgement by which such experience of powerlessness is generated.
        When judgement seems to be protector or saviour, fear is hiding beneath it. Is that evil?
        It will seem evil when hiding and protection sacrifice all else to achieve it. And if that is to be blotted out from mind external evil MUST be sought and found to generate a relative innocence upon which to make a self in the world.

        If evils are pretended not to be – they grow in the dark unseen while working through us unknown.
        Sufficient unto the day be the evils thereof offers a timely proportionate adjunct to investigate and challenge the evils or ills that arise as if to spoil or interrupt one’s day – for that which is resisted, persists and that which is fought is fed attention and focus. So the way to put behind you what has no place in you is one of pausing from reaction, releasing one’s thought or judgements to a genuine receptivity and trusting the movement of one’s being. If fear is felt, feel it but do no its bidding. Let it be accepted that it is there so as to come out from darkness. Now it can move and change and reveal you to yourself in ways that expand your capacity for Life.

        To tune into the fearful or evil, is to participate in its vibratory correspondences. To open into a true relationship with the living is to put fear behind you and shift to a higher frequency perspective. This can be so readily observed as to seem redundant – yet fascination with evil actually attracts an unguarded attention and allowing or receiving love, joy or peace will often be cut off or recoiled from almost immediately. So it can be said that you contain both within you and yet if you learn to choose one and let the other go the temptation to judge against will be left hanging – because you will be whole in your choosing. One cannot be whole in denial for that which is denied is inherent to the seeming existence of the denier.

        Thankyou for the question. If it is a true question, you will have the measure you set.

        • rahrog

          It was an honest question. Thanks for your response. Perhaps the monster is within us, and the abyss is but a mirror.

          • Thankyou again.
            All things imaginable are in some sense within us – without limit – but as we identify humanly we are limited by what we most strongly accept and believe to be true of us. The current human definition generally speaking is a conflicted or divided sense of self and reality. Attempt to force this to be ‘good’ no matter how subtly contrived or well intentioned, rebound as coercions born of denial. What is truly and spontaneously natural of you is innocent of evil because it is whole, unconflicted and without adulteration of an interjecting mind. We cannot ‘do’ this from the mind that is already interjecting itself upon experience as attempt to control it. But noticing that mind and pausing or releasing it in trust of our true nature is like a moment of allowing the Well to rise forth. This is another way of describing “Thy Will not mine be done”. Until one has grown a degree of trust by which to let more honesty in, there may be fear that a monster will rise from the deep. That what you truly are would be something shameful or terrible that is UN worthy of loving acceptance. If such fears have your imagination you can project them onto the movement of your being and become as one outside yourself in fear of whatever it is that your sense of disconnection is associated with. But we all have a version of loss, abandonment, darkness, fear, conflict, guilt, betrayal, rejection – and the intensity of such emotional energy in covering or masking over such intolerable self-sense with denial and imaginative wilfulness.
            What is the mask but the determination NOT to look within? The fear-belief in the hateful hides beneath the face that seems kind and forgiving and looks out in well intention but is drawn down by a multitude of seemingly minor slights, irritations and small attacks that then bring forth the anger of attack and denial into raw expression – or choose to use guile to mask the intent no less hateful.

            One of the crazy aspects of fearful identity is that it defends itself against healing and will project evil onto the Good and call upon fear to protect it. But that does not make such a one evil, it means they are ignorant of their true nature and operating out of confusion.

            Its always a matter of perspective – and from certain perspectives evil is a very real danger and should not be dismissed or made light of – for deception costs us our appreciation of EVERYTHING if we let it run our thoughts in smug indifference.
            In awakened purpose there is nothing to fear – because unified purpose is whole and there is nowhere for evil to enter.
            You may or may not be open to religious symbol but the Lord’s Prayer is a very succinct and potent reminder of truth – which is not in the forms as such but illuminating the ‘territory’ or presence that is looking within.
            If you go looking for trouble you will always find it. Such is the power of intention. So look for what you want and beware of looking in terms of what you don’t want – or you drag it with you.

            It can be said that an anti Christ polarity operates within the experience of the world as a seeking of denial – that is in a sense the embodiment of denial energy. Its only relationship or response to Light of awareness is denial and Jesus called it the lie and the father of the lie.

            It can be seen to reflect through such as Stalin or Mao who each sacrificed many millions and imposed terror and misery upon his own people. Such is the nature of the will to power that hollows out and corrupts. But it reflects in so many seeming ordinary ways that may not show up in such stark terms. I recommend not focusing on anything of such nature without the true support and guidance of the Spirit – of being in true purpose. Otherwise it dis-spirits you at the least, and imprints disturbance of a reinforcing nature to your own fears.

            Any of what I wrote can be tested out. Your life is already a testing out or discovering and uncovering. Horror is part of the nature of the world in form – but as the capacity for joy expands more of what was denied can be let in to be undone. The focus is in living your joy – not a witch-hunt for evil to fight or deal with. Your joy is your Creator signature by which you know yourself uniquely and exactly you. Everything that is NOT you will be shown up in your joy, because a dishonesty or out-of-true condition is dissonant. Is that a basis for judgement and blame or an opportunity to ‘true-up’? That’s a key decision.

          • rahrog

            You have a beautiful mind. Happy trails!

          • Thankyou for the synchronicity of a shared mind and the natural blessing that comes of a mutual honouring.

  • Bruce C.

    The passages above are some of the most horrendous things I’ve ever read. Ebeling tries to claim that the “aggressors” were/are idealists who really believed what they did would improve things and end well. He’s dismayed by Stalin’s ability to condemn thousands and then watch “Happy Days.”

    Frankly, I don’t believe that they were idealists. I think Stalin and his “top” aids were “mentally ill” and all of their implementers and enablers were thugs no more idealistic than cowards.

    “binra” likes to talk about the mind contorting itself to rationalize or deny but I think that may apply to those who analyze “socialism” too. Maybe it’s harder to face the fact that insanity can manifest itself en masse, that given the chance to “get away with murder” far more people than we want to admit will take the opportunity. Maybe that’s too scary or more difficult to control. At least by intellectualizing it we can hope to avoid it next time, to reason with the next monster or not “elect” him or not do his bidding. Everybody’s afraid of “socialism” still creeping around in the world and surviving in various nooks and crannies, and so we should, but the real existential defense is not just “education” but physical self-defense. I don’t know a lot of the intimate facts about how “socialism” has taken root, but as far as I can tell, none of the people/fodder were armed. I can’t see how people can be rounded up if – on average, like here in the USA – there is a gun for every citizen. I normally don’t think this way, but some of what’s gone down during the 20th century is beyond the pale, and given that people were just as intelligent and probably more educated than today and that crap still happened several times on a huge scale is unbelievable. Some people claim that had citizens been armed when some of the recent “mass” killings took place that history would have been different. Well, other than the scale what really is the difference? You can still study and debate why “socialism” is bad, but I suggest you be willing and able to physically defend yourself in case your analysis is wrong or hasn’t convinced enough (or the “right”) people before it’s too late.

    • Bill Ross

      never depend on reason from from those who demand something without quid pro quo

    • Richard Ebeling

      Bruce,
      I wish such behavior could be explained away to say they were “mentally ill.” Then we can say that such conduct is outside of normal human understanding.

      Unfortunately, I think the tragedy and perversity of all that happened in the Soviet Union and other communist countries is that it was implemented by people who were quite sane, rational and logical. That is what is far worse in my opinion. They were hyper-rationalists who believed they had discovered the “laws of history,” the hidden forces of historical change and transformation, the truth about human relationships in terms of “class conflict.”

      Now, of course, such people were not ideological robots. They were real human beings, as well. With ambitions, desires, personal differences and conflicts that they took advantage to “settle” with brutality.

      Theirs was (and is) the “rationalist constructivism” about which thinkers such as F.A. Hayek and Wilhelm Roepke, especially, though not exclusively, warned about. They are the “social engineers” who are confident that they can remake man and society, and know the shape and form it should take on for the good of a future “humanity” to come.

      It is why a different socialist, the National Socialist (Nazi) Joseph Goebbels and his wife, Magda, chose to poison their children in the bunker after Hitler’s death, before taking their own lives because they could not imagine their children living in a world without the race purity of “National Socialism.”

      These people really believed this stuff. That is the danger of such people. For them, it is not just propaganda.

      • Bruce C.

        Being “mentally ill” and having a belief system that is impaired is more or less the same thing. I don’t mean to argue semantics, but this reminds me of the recent discussion about “great minds” reaching erroneous conclusions. I don’t understand how those two concepts go together. In school, for example (as I argued), reaching a “wrong” answer in math, or whatever, was not evidence of genius. Even getting there by “brute force”, albeit correctly, wasn’t particularly admirable. Something elegant, like 8 year old Carl Gauss finding an algorithm for the sum of any string of consecutive integers within minutes is, imo.

        Okay, so maybe we’re not talking about “genius”, just rational – or “hyper-rational.” Again, I have to ask, how rational/logical can a belief system be if it reaches an absurd conclusion? More on a “human” level, how rational or “normal” can Stalin, say, be when both Franklin and Churchill felt he gave them the creeps, and even Mussolini didn’t want to be alone with him? The guy was a physical freak too – unusually short, with a shriveled left arm (and gross manners). C’mon man! Wouldn’t you think it odd that such a “specimen” could be so influential? Stalin learned the system, I’ll give you that: being Secretary in the Communist party “under” Lenin was how he was able to enlist and recruit the most demented. But he was a nut job, and everybody knew it, they just didn’t know what to do. (You may have heard the anecdote about football Patriots owner Robert Kraft meeting with Putin. Putin asked to hold his Super Bowl ring, and when Kraft handed it to him Putin walked away with it. Kraft was stunned, and never got his ring back. Same shit.)

        I could go on, but you get my drift. Thanks for your response.

        P.S. How do you know that Goebbels and his wife killed their kids because they wouldn’t live in ‘the racial purity of national socialism’? Maybe they just “knew” that they would be “torn apart” by the “dogs” of their own making. Maybe that’s the kind of rationality that you mean?

        • Bill Ross

          The main reason I agree with you is information availability: We can only KNOW them by what they do, at which point “natural law” and consequences provides a measurable standard of civilized vs barbaric. The insane versus misguided “argument”, to resolve requires mind reading AND belief in the veracity of what they say.

          Also, in the area of civilized vs barbaric, if one were to conceptualize this in the mental health sense, I think the key factor is awareness and respect for the peaceful right of others to exist and live according to dissenting viewpoints. So, to frame this in the mental health sense, it is the peaceful versus psychopaths who are foolishly tolerated to build coercive systems by and for the psychopaths.

  • robertsgt40

    Ah yes, the Russian revolution, financed out of New York

  • Libertarian Jerry

    It seems that there are a lot of trolls on this site. If one argues with an idiot soon people won’t know who the real idiot is.

    • Excellent point. Thanks.

    • Bill Ross

      Not if you set traps and allow them to hang themselves with illogic.

  • Louis Hissink

    There is an interesting ‘fact’ quoted here – the existence in the 1930s of a USSR crematoria or underground ovens reaching temperatures of 12 thousand degrees centigrade, Given that modern crematoria operate at temperatures of 870-950 degrees Celsius (centigrade) and modern blast furnaces 1500 degrees Celsius, this is quite a technological achievement for Russia at the time. I suppose others would have learnt from this and implemented more modern versions perhaps a decade later.

    Simply miraculous.

loading