I want to thank Michael for a carefully written and researched paper that should have a broad appeal.
I want everyone to know, also, that this is a rhetorical, even ideological, statement, that should not be confused with historical research.
Let me explain what I mean. First, the horrors of collectivism in the 1930s in the Soviet Union have really nothing to do with the corporate take over the of the means of food production globally in recent years-except perhaps in the sense that power is expressed by those empowered in similar ways.
The Soviet bureaucrats under Stalin were cruel because they came out of the cruel tradition of the Czar more than because they were communist. This effort to project the mistakes under Lenin and Stalin on the communist ideology, rather than the cruelty of Russian governing systems is a standard theme in revisionist writing.
Moreover, although there were tremendous cruelties that resulted from collectivism drives in the 1930s which are extensively covered in meticulous research, there are also numberous examples of creative, inspiring collective cooperative farming and labor systems in Russia and Ukraine and else where like Spain and Germany during the 1920s and 1930s that are unlike anything to be found anywhere today. The involved art, music, education and other opportunities for peasants previously unexperienced. The positive aspects of the collective movements across Europe are not touched on in this article. We must see the successful, and the failed, Russian experiments, and we must view them within the context of the many brave and inspiring experiments at the time. Only then can one get a more balanced picture.
There is much that citizens today could learn from the collectives and cooperatives of Europe in the 1920s and 1930s.
The current drive is not collectivism in any sense of the word. It is the drive of the super rich to control the means of production so as to starve the middle class into submission and create a new feudalism, or worse. This move is a product of the radical concentration of wealth and the distortion in culture and ideology that is produces. Marx may be quirky, but he is right on target in his analysis of that topic. To somehow suggest that communist ideology is responsible for global finance's greed is extreme.
The suggestion that somehow the drive of the super-rich to destroy the middle class and most of humanity is the same as communism, socialism and collectivism is so contrived and inane that I am sure it will have the guys back at the club chuckling. This argument might be worth a few bucks, however, for a private intelligence contractor working under direction of multinational banks to try to discourage citizens from responding to the take over of the economy by multinationals by organizing themselves, or creating their own agricultural collectives. Actually, if I know a few of those contractors who might be interested in your work. Happy to make the introduction.
The brutality of the Soviet Union was real, but it also was part of a collective global resistance to economic systems dominated by global finance at the time. That struggle in the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s is what produced the middle class in the US, Germany and elsewhere. We may not like what Stalin did, but I think we must recognize that at a macro level it was critical to forcing through a new economic system in which workers had opportunities they never had before, and for laying the groundwork for the rights we enjoy today--which are being stripped away as we speak.
Finally, any discussion of the cruelties of Stalinists must be seen in comparision to the cruelty of factory owners and bankers in the US, France, Germany and elsewhere. Take a look at the way that strikes were destroyed with military intervention, the murder of labor organizers, the use of spies paid for by the state, the bribing and intimidation of workers--and the denial to workers of basic education in the 1930s.
If you do not see that part of the equation, you are inclined to see the Soviet Union as a deviation from some ideal society. The Soviet Union in the 1920s and 1930s was deeply flawed, but it avoided much of the worst of what happened in Germany during the hyperinflation induced by global banks run by Warburgs, Morgans and Rothchilds. Compared with that horror show, the Stalinist come out looking not that bad, or at least on the same level.
Thanks again for the informative article. I hope it helps everyone to be better informed.
First, the horrors of collectivism in the 1930s in the Soviet Union have really nothing to do with the corporate take over the of the means of food production globally in recent years-except perhaps in the sense that power is expressed by those empowered in similar ways.
1) The similarities are obvious: both the collectivism in the 1930s and the current “corporate take over the of the means of food production” involve the centralisation of power to the detriment of the populace. Both are evils, which consciously and deliberately create starvation.
The Soviet bureaucrats under Stalin were cruel because they came out of the cruel tradition of the Tzar more than because they were communist. This effort to project the mistakes under Lenin and Stalin on the communist ideology, rather than the cruelty of Russian governing systems is a standard theme in revisionist writing.
2) Totalitarian ideologies, especially the more “idealistic” ones, tend to cruelty and justify everything in terms of “means justifying ends”. As one who experienced the horrors of communism in the 1980s I can only say: living in an ivory tower and ignoring the reality of history is a dangerous and morally questionable mode of conduct.
Moreover, although there were tremendous cruelties that resulted from collectivism drives in the 1930s which are extensively covered in meticulous research, there are also numerous examples of creative, inspiring collective cooperative farming and labor systems in Russia and Ukraine and else where like Spain and Germany during the 1920s and 1930s that are unlike anything to be found anywhere today. The involved art, music, education and other opportunities for peasants previously unexperienced. The positive aspects of the collective movements across Europe are not touched on in this article. We must see the successful, and the failed, Russian experiments, and we must view them within the context of the many brave and inspiring experiments at the time. Only then can one get a more balanced picture.
3) One must not confuse co-ops, worker buy-ins or genuine examples of communities working together with “collectivism”, which sacrifices the individual. In this respect one has to think of the New Deal as well as the Nazis and the Communists. All three played loose and fast with the law and all three increased the power of the state at the expense of the individual, a power which was easily and remains open to abuse.
There is much that citizens today could learn from the collectives and cooperatives of Europe in the 1920s and 1930s.
The current drive is not collectivism in any sense of the word. It is the drive of the super rich to control the means of production so as to starve the middle class into submission and create a new feudalism, or worse. This move is a product of the radical concentration of wealth and the distortion in culture and ideology that is produces. Marx may be quirky, but he is right on target in his analysis of that topic. To somehow suggest that communist ideology is responsible for global finance's greed is extreme.
4) What is the slogan of the WEF? “You will own nothing and be happy”. What did Marx and the Communists want? To abolish private property (in favour of the Oligarchs, who controlled (and control) the Deep State and who sponsored them discretely behind the scenes).
The suggestion that somehow the drive of the super-rich to destroy the middle class and most of humanity is the same as communism, socialism and collectivism is so contrived and inane that I am sure it will have the guys back at the club chuckling.
5) Of course, the aim of collectivism remains the same: the individual is sacrificed to the interests of the Oligarchs, who control the state.
This argument might be worth a few bucks, however, for a private intelligence contractor working under direction of multinational banks to try to discourage citizens from responding to the take over of the economy by multinationals by organizing themselves, or creating their own agricultural collectives.
6) The only way forward is to create agricultural communities that are NOT collectives (i.e. the interests of the individual are NEVER sacrificed to those of the “collective”).
Actually, if I know a few of those contractors who might be interested in your work. Happy to make the introduction.
The brutality of the Soviet Union was real, but it also was part of a collective global resistance to economic systems dominated by global finance at the time.
7) The brutality of the Bolsheviks was the brutality of Wall Street, which financed them.
That struggle in the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s is what produced the middle class in the US, Germany and elsewhere. We may not like what Stalin did, but I think we must recognize that at a macro level it was critical to forcing through a new economic system in which workers had opportunities they never had before, and for laying the groundwork for the rights we enjoy today--which are being stripped away as we speak.
8) The myth of Stalin “modernizing the Soviet Union” was debunked in the 1980s when historians realized that Russia was already heavily industrialized in 1914.
Finally, any discussion of the cruelties of Stalinists must be seen in comparision to the cruelty of factory owners and bankers in the US, France, Germany and elsewhere.
9) The cruelties of the Stalinists expressed the cruelty of Wall Street and other Deep State actors, which created the Bolsheviks and financed them.
Take a look at the way that strikes were destroyed with military intervention, the murder of labor organizers, the use of spies paid for by the state, the bribing and intimidation of workers--and the denial to workers of basic education in the 1930s.
If you do not see that part of the equation, you are inclined to see the Soviet Union as a deviation from some ideal society. The Soviet Union in the 1920s and 1930s was deeply flawed, but it avoided much of the worst of what happened in Germany during the hyperinflation induced by global banks run by Warburgs, Morgans and Rothchilds.
10) Stalin murdered more people than Hitler. Stalin’s Russia had few if any redeeming qualities (I can think of none). Communism, Nazism and Zionism were seen by contemporaries such as Klemperer to be not fundamentally different. All three are Deep State ideologies, which have done humanity untold harm.
Compared with that horror show, the Stalinist come out looking not that bad, or at least on the same level.
Thanks again for the informative article. I hope it helps everyone to be better informed.
Powerfully written, elegantly argued and completely wrong-headed explanation. Of course we do not ultimately know the figures of people who who died as a result of collectivzation in the Soviet Union and China, but the millions and millions declared by right wing scholars are not that convincing, and there is plenty of scholarship that makes the argument that things were better than in other countries. I do not know, and we probably will never know for sure. If we look at the number of people killed in colonial wars, by automobiles without safety features, by cigarettes promoted by corporations as healthy, etc. We get into the many millions killed pretty fast. So I guess we do not have much to say to Stalin.
You should have your own show! Certainly very scientific to presume I have never met anyone who experienced communism, rather than asking me if I have. Communism is such a vague term these days that I am not sure we know what it means. But many who speak favorably of communism would argue, not without justification, that few alive have experienced communism. That the best of the experiments with communism in the 1920s are unknown to anyone today and only the corrupt final stages of the Soviet Union, which was not communism, are remembered. I am no communist, but to attack communism without noting the achievements and praise the west without noting its horrible sins, is simply unscientific. Let us not forget that the American Communist Party stood up for the rights of African Americans in the 1920s and many of the social benefits Germans enjoy until recently were precisely what German communists fought for in the 1920s. If we lost those rights, maybe it is because we no longer have such warriors
I am wary of the use of the word "scientific" in this particular context. I assume that you have never met anyone who has actually lived under Communism because you have such a strangely favourable (and I fear inaccurate) idea about it. I met someone who lived under Communism the other day. She said that there was NOTHING good about it. I have only met a few people who were nostalgic for the (totalitarian) "good old days" but they constitute a tiny minority. There is also a wealth of personal testimony about the harshness of life under brutal dictatorship. I would suggest that you read it.
You have nothing positive to say aboutnthe American Communist Party and its fight for civil rights and basic welfare for workers in the 1920s and 1930s? You have absolutely nothing positive to say about the fight of German Communists against militarism at the end of the First World War, or their fights for worker's rights, or their lead role in the battle against Fascism in the 1930s?
I want to thank Michael for a carefully written and researched paper that should have a broad appeal.
I want everyone to know, also, that this is a rhetorical, even ideological, statement, that should not be confused with historical research.
Let me explain what I mean. First, the horrors of collectivism in the 1930s in the Soviet Union have really nothing to do with the corporate take over the of the means of food production globally in recent years-except perhaps in the sense that power is expressed by those empowered in similar ways.
The Soviet bureaucrats under Stalin were cruel because they came out of the cruel tradition of the Czar more than because they were communist. This effort to project the mistakes under Lenin and Stalin on the communist ideology, rather than the cruelty of Russian governing systems is a standard theme in revisionist writing.
Moreover, although there were tremendous cruelties that resulted from collectivism drives in the 1930s which are extensively covered in meticulous research, there are also numberous examples of creative, inspiring collective cooperative farming and labor systems in Russia and Ukraine and else where like Spain and Germany during the 1920s and 1930s that are unlike anything to be found anywhere today. The involved art, music, education and other opportunities for peasants previously unexperienced. The positive aspects of the collective movements across Europe are not touched on in this article. We must see the successful, and the failed, Russian experiments, and we must view them within the context of the many brave and inspiring experiments at the time. Only then can one get a more balanced picture.
There is much that citizens today could learn from the collectives and cooperatives of Europe in the 1920s and 1930s.
The current drive is not collectivism in any sense of the word. It is the drive of the super rich to control the means of production so as to starve the middle class into submission and create a new feudalism, or worse. This move is a product of the radical concentration of wealth and the distortion in culture and ideology that is produces. Marx may be quirky, but he is right on target in his analysis of that topic. To somehow suggest that communist ideology is responsible for global finance's greed is extreme.
The suggestion that somehow the drive of the super-rich to destroy the middle class and most of humanity is the same as communism, socialism and collectivism is so contrived and inane that I am sure it will have the guys back at the club chuckling. This argument might be worth a few bucks, however, for a private intelligence contractor working under direction of multinational banks to try to discourage citizens from responding to the take over of the economy by multinationals by organizing themselves, or creating their own agricultural collectives. Actually, if I know a few of those contractors who might be interested in your work. Happy to make the introduction.
The brutality of the Soviet Union was real, but it also was part of a collective global resistance to economic systems dominated by global finance at the time. That struggle in the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s is what produced the middle class in the US, Germany and elsewhere. We may not like what Stalin did, but I think we must recognize that at a macro level it was critical to forcing through a new economic system in which workers had opportunities they never had before, and for laying the groundwork for the rights we enjoy today--which are being stripped away as we speak.
Finally, any discussion of the cruelties of Stalinists must be seen in comparision to the cruelty of factory owners and bankers in the US, France, Germany and elsewhere. Take a look at the way that strikes were destroyed with military intervention, the murder of labor organizers, the use of spies paid for by the state, the bribing and intimidation of workers--and the denial to workers of basic education in the 1930s.
If you do not see that part of the equation, you are inclined to see the Soviet Union as a deviation from some ideal society. The Soviet Union in the 1920s and 1930s was deeply flawed, but it avoided much of the worst of what happened in Germany during the hyperinflation induced by global banks run by Warburgs, Morgans and Rothchilds. Compared with that horror show, the Stalinist come out looking not that bad, or at least on the same level.
Thanks again for the informative article. I hope it helps everyone to be better informed.
First, the horrors of collectivism in the 1930s in the Soviet Union have really nothing to do with the corporate take over the of the means of food production globally in recent years-except perhaps in the sense that power is expressed by those empowered in similar ways.
1) The similarities are obvious: both the collectivism in the 1930s and the current “corporate take over the of the means of food production” involve the centralisation of power to the detriment of the populace. Both are evils, which consciously and deliberately create starvation.
The Soviet bureaucrats under Stalin were cruel because they came out of the cruel tradition of the Tzar more than because they were communist. This effort to project the mistakes under Lenin and Stalin on the communist ideology, rather than the cruelty of Russian governing systems is a standard theme in revisionist writing.
2) Totalitarian ideologies, especially the more “idealistic” ones, tend to cruelty and justify everything in terms of “means justifying ends”. As one who experienced the horrors of communism in the 1980s I can only say: living in an ivory tower and ignoring the reality of history is a dangerous and morally questionable mode of conduct.
Moreover, although there were tremendous cruelties that resulted from collectivism drives in the 1930s which are extensively covered in meticulous research, there are also numerous examples of creative, inspiring collective cooperative farming and labor systems in Russia and Ukraine and else where like Spain and Germany during the 1920s and 1930s that are unlike anything to be found anywhere today. The involved art, music, education and other opportunities for peasants previously unexperienced. The positive aspects of the collective movements across Europe are not touched on in this article. We must see the successful, and the failed, Russian experiments, and we must view them within the context of the many brave and inspiring experiments at the time. Only then can one get a more balanced picture.
3) One must not confuse co-ops, worker buy-ins or genuine examples of communities working together with “collectivism”, which sacrifices the individual. In this respect one has to think of the New Deal as well as the Nazis and the Communists. All three played loose and fast with the law and all three increased the power of the state at the expense of the individual, a power which was easily and remains open to abuse.
There is much that citizens today could learn from the collectives and cooperatives of Europe in the 1920s and 1930s.
The current drive is not collectivism in any sense of the word. It is the drive of the super rich to control the means of production so as to starve the middle class into submission and create a new feudalism, or worse. This move is a product of the radical concentration of wealth and the distortion in culture and ideology that is produces. Marx may be quirky, but he is right on target in his analysis of that topic. To somehow suggest that communist ideology is responsible for global finance's greed is extreme.
4) What is the slogan of the WEF? “You will own nothing and be happy”. What did Marx and the Communists want? To abolish private property (in favour of the Oligarchs, who controlled (and control) the Deep State and who sponsored them discretely behind the scenes).
The suggestion that somehow the drive of the super-rich to destroy the middle class and most of humanity is the same as communism, socialism and collectivism is so contrived and inane that I am sure it will have the guys back at the club chuckling.
5) Of course, the aim of collectivism remains the same: the individual is sacrificed to the interests of the Oligarchs, who control the state.
This argument might be worth a few bucks, however, for a private intelligence contractor working under direction of multinational banks to try to discourage citizens from responding to the take over of the economy by multinationals by organizing themselves, or creating their own agricultural collectives.
6) The only way forward is to create agricultural communities that are NOT collectives (i.e. the interests of the individual are NEVER sacrificed to those of the “collective”).
Actually, if I know a few of those contractors who might be interested in your work. Happy to make the introduction.
The brutality of the Soviet Union was real, but it also was part of a collective global resistance to economic systems dominated by global finance at the time.
7) The brutality of the Bolsheviks was the brutality of Wall Street, which financed them.
That struggle in the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s is what produced the middle class in the US, Germany and elsewhere. We may not like what Stalin did, but I think we must recognize that at a macro level it was critical to forcing through a new economic system in which workers had opportunities they never had before, and for laying the groundwork for the rights we enjoy today--which are being stripped away as we speak.
8) The myth of Stalin “modernizing the Soviet Union” was debunked in the 1980s when historians realized that Russia was already heavily industrialized in 1914.
Finally, any discussion of the cruelties of Stalinists must be seen in comparision to the cruelty of factory owners and bankers in the US, France, Germany and elsewhere.
9) The cruelties of the Stalinists expressed the cruelty of Wall Street and other Deep State actors, which created the Bolsheviks and financed them.
Take a look at the way that strikes were destroyed with military intervention, the murder of labor organizers, the use of spies paid for by the state, the bribing and intimidation of workers--and the denial to workers of basic education in the 1930s.
If you do not see that part of the equation, you are inclined to see the Soviet Union as a deviation from some ideal society. The Soviet Union in the 1920s and 1930s was deeply flawed, but it avoided much of the worst of what happened in Germany during the hyperinflation induced by global banks run by Warburgs, Morgans and Rothchilds.
10) Stalin murdered more people than Hitler. Stalin’s Russia had few if any redeeming qualities (I can think of none). Communism, Nazism and Zionism were seen by contemporaries such as Klemperer to be not fundamentally different. All three are Deep State ideologies, which have done humanity untold harm.
Compared with that horror show, the Stalinist come out looking not that bad, or at least on the same level.
Thanks again for the informative article. I hope it helps everyone to be better informed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pd9B3cilgHY&t=1s&ab_channel=TheRomanovRoyalMartyrs
Powerfully written, elegantly argued and completely wrong-headed explanation. Of course we do not ultimately know the figures of people who who died as a result of collectivzation in the Soviet Union and China, but the millions and millions declared by right wing scholars are not that convincing, and there is plenty of scholarship that makes the argument that things were better than in other countries. I do not know, and we probably will never know for sure. If we look at the number of people killed in colonial wars, by automobiles without safety features, by cigarettes promoted by corporations as healthy, etc. We get into the many millions killed pretty fast. So I guess we do not have much to say to Stalin.
I would suggest that you actually talk to someone who experienced Communism.
You should have your own show! Certainly very scientific to presume I have never met anyone who experienced communism, rather than asking me if I have. Communism is such a vague term these days that I am not sure we know what it means. But many who speak favorably of communism would argue, not without justification, that few alive have experienced communism. That the best of the experiments with communism in the 1920s are unknown to anyone today and only the corrupt final stages of the Soviet Union, which was not communism, are remembered. I am no communist, but to attack communism without noting the achievements and praise the west without noting its horrible sins, is simply unscientific. Let us not forget that the American Communist Party stood up for the rights of African Americans in the 1920s and many of the social benefits Germans enjoy until recently were precisely what German communists fought for in the 1920s. If we lost those rights, maybe it is because we no longer have such warriors
I am wary of the use of the word "scientific" in this particular context. I assume that you have never met anyone who has actually lived under Communism because you have such a strangely favourable (and I fear inaccurate) idea about it. I met someone who lived under Communism the other day. She said that there was NOTHING good about it. I have only met a few people who were nostalgic for the (totalitarian) "good old days" but they constitute a tiny minority. There is also a wealth of personal testimony about the harshness of life under brutal dictatorship. I would suggest that you read it.
You have nothing positive to say aboutnthe American Communist Party and its fight for civil rights and basic welfare for workers in the 1920s and 1930s? You have absolutely nothing positive to say about the fight of German Communists against militarism at the end of the First World War, or their fights for worker's rights, or their lead role in the battle against Fascism in the 1930s?