Do Socialists/Communitists believe in family?

[tempus fugit]

I've always believed that Rightists acknowledge and place priamcy on the concept of family, and racial/ethnic distinctions simply are an extension of that concept.

Do Socialists differ? I see little evidence that communist or socialist doctrine supports the concept of family.

[Ixtab]

Socialism fights against the very economic causes which are now destroying the family. It does not pay to be a mother in a system based on profiteering and cash payments. Therefore, anyone defending the status-quo, more so than the Socialist, is in fact anti-family. This, of course, includes most right-wingers.

[Leif]

Socialism fights against the very economic causes which are now destroying the family. It does not pay to be a mother in a system based on profiteering and cash payments. Therefore, anyone defending the status-quo, more so than the Socialist, is in fact anti-family. This, of course, includes most right-wingers.

This is true. It was the wage-system that took many mothers out of the home and into the work-place. It was the wage-system that abolished communities and created atomized individuals.

[Ahknaton]

Pol Pot certainly didn't. All loyalties except to the party were outlawed. Children were taken away from their parents and raised as wards of the state. "Angkor is your family".

(cue argument about how Cambodian Communism wasn't really Communism at all but "Agrarian Socialism")

[jcs]

Pol Pot certainly didn't. All loyalties except to the party were outlawed. Children were taken away from their parents and raised as wards of the state. "Angkor is your family".
Historically speaking, socialism has failed in most places, but in those places in which it failed, it failed due to the adoption of insane extra-socialist ideas. That is not to say that the adoption of any extra-socialist idea is bad--hell, it is necessary for a government that uses socialist economics to look outside of socialism to find the values required for society to be whole; but insane, counter-biological ideas (such as taking away one's offspring) lead to failure. Quite obviously, socialism does not necessitate such practices.

(Goddammit, I seem to be warming up to socialism, or at least the version promoted by the Phora's resident socialists.)

[tempus fugit]

Historically speaking, socialism has failed in most places...

Where has it not failed? Cuba, North Korea? I'd say no, since regarding Cuba we have no idea how they are doing, and they seem to be warming up to taking money from capitalists, and North Korea is, to me, the humanitarian disaster of the last 2 decades.

[Slavic Enforcer]

We Socialists consider the nation to be a big family.

[Billy Score]

Pol Pot certainly didn't. All loyalties except to the party were outlawed. Children were taken away from their parents and raised as wards of the state. "Angkor is your family".

(cue argument about how Cambodian Communism wasn't really Communism at all but "Agrarian Socialism")

There is nothing wrong with this, the idea is simply that the modern family is incapable of raising worthwhile children. Any kind of collectivizing the family would be a temporary issue to guarantee that future families are pointed in the right direction and all vestiges of the modern family(or lack thereof) are wiped out.

[jcs]

Where has it not failed?
More important question: why has it failed?

We Socialists consider the nation to be a big family.
At the expense of one's extended family and immediate family?
It's a matter of priorities. One should place the immediate and familiar above the extended, distant, and alien. Human psychology is the product of evolution, and we evolved to care about those close to us because they share genes more similar to our own than those distant from us. If socialism considers the nation a big family, that is good, but only so long as one's immediate family is considered more important than the nation.

There is nothing wrong with this
There is everything wrong with it. Not only does the removal of children from the parents psychologically harm the parents; but it also conditions the children away from the idea of family. Think about it: they would grow up lacking a proper model with which to raise their own children, and thus their children, too, would be broken, but to a lesser degree than the first generation of broken offspring.
Is there "nothing wrong with" destroying the family life of at least three generations of people?

[Jonathan]

It's unfair that alot of the Left-wingers here are equating "right-wing" with "capitalism". There is more to politics than just the management of economics. Traditionally the right was always pro-family and pro-nationalism (I stress "traditionally"). It has only been in the last while that ultra-capitalism has done away with the latter two.

[Billy Score]

Jcs- the traditional family is dead and it cannot be resurrected unless a vast restructuring is done to society as a whole. These parents hardly care about their children. they seek to get rid of them so they can go clubbing. Children are considered a burden. When your first instinct is to question whether or not to keep it, you are an unfit parent, and an unfit member of society. The purpose of collectivizing is both to eliminate the remnants of this type of degenerate half parenting. There is nothign wrong with destroying the family because the family has already imploded in upon itself and now is vestigial entirely. But changes happen in the hearts and minds of society, no amount of government sponsored incentive will keep the family together. this is why the family must come under the jurisdiction of the state for at least enough generations to allow reeducation and reintroduction of the family. The vestiges of the decaying and corrupted world must be wiped away before a new, better put in its place without the influence of judaism and soulless capitalism.

And is it wrong to separate a mother from her child? not in the scheme of things. Not when by doing so you guarantee that no mother will throw her child in a dumpster in the future, and no child will wonder who his father is.

[Slavic Enforcer]

There is everything wrong with it. Not only does the removal of children from the parents psychologically harm the parents; but it also conditions the children away from the idea of family. Think about it: they would grow up lacking a proper model with which to raise their own children, and thus their children, too, would be broken, but to a lesser degree than the first generation of broken offspring.
Is there "nothing wrong with" destroying the family life of at least three generations of people?

What you describe has nothing to do with Socialism.

[jcs]

the traditional family is dead
Sounds like you had a bad childhood. Most families are not 'dead,' and outside of urban areas, nearly all families are quite healthy. There are, of course, incidents of terrible family values in our society, but such degenerated family life is far from the norm. The fact is that the issue at hand is one of misplaced values, with people caring more about their selves than those whom they should love--but this does not mean that love of family members is entirely absent. Such love is merely subordinated to love of self.
Removal of children from their families seems far more destructive than a relatively easy alternative: re-educate families.
To support some of my claims: notice that most people are outraged when a child is thrown in the dumpster, and furthermore that there is still a large part of the population completely opposed to abortion, a large part of the population who would not consider for a second getting rid of their child.

What you write reads like rationalized sensationalism just for the sake of promoting something radical.

[tempus fugit]

the idea is simply that the modern family is incapable of raising worthwhile children.

What evidence do you have of this?

[Billy Score]

What you describe has nothing to do with Socialism.

Not all socialism. I advocate it out of what i perceive as necessity.

And the reintroduction of the family would be a gradual process which may span a generation or two or three. I understand that the without a proper model, people would be lost but the family is not just a social construct but a natural instinct that partially would never be lost. It is simply the State's responsibility to make sure that citizens are trained and instructed on raising children (and children would still be raised so it is not like they would not be unaware of how children are raised as they would still have been involved in the process).

[jcs]

What you describe has nothing to do with Socialism.
It has everything to do with historical socialism and the comments made by a socialist in this thread.
Why don't you respond to the part of my post directed at your comments?

[Billy Score]

What evidence do you have of this?
The figures on how many children born out of wedlock and to divorced couples is more than half the population. that hardly sounds like a healthy family life to me.

[jcs]

the family is not just a social construct but a natural instinct that partially would never be lost
I agree with this, which is primarily why I criticize the removal of children from their parents. When one's conditioned behavior contradicts one's instincts, problems arise.

[Jonathan]

And is it wrong to separate a mother from her child? not in the scheme of things. Not when by doing so you guarantee that no mother will throw her child in a dumpster in the future, and no child will wonder who his father is.
LOL, The child will just wonder who their father and mother is! Yes, there is something wrong with taking a child from its mother(unless the mother is a complete misfit).

[jcs]

The figures on how many children born out of wedlock and to divorced couples is more than half the population. that hardly sounds like a healthy family life to me.
If both parents care about the welfare of the child, a child coming from a broken family can still turn out healthy. The problem here is individualism vis-a-vis spousal relationships; humans care about their children to such a degree that individualism rarely overrides parental instincts. As such, child abandonment is only possible if people do not get to know their children. Hence mothers who have opted to give their children up for adoption prefer to ignore the child after birth, because by even looking at the child, a mother will find it far more difficult to let someone else take it. That is to say, detachment is used as a coping method to handle the difficulty of abandoning a child; with a little re-education, people shouldn't have much of a problem being decent parents.

[tempus fugit]

The figures on how many children born out of wedlock and to divorced couples is more than half the population. that hardly sounds like a healthy family life to me.

Those figure correlated directly with the loosening of family values, the onslaught of socialist programs, and progressivism that infected the nation starting in the mid-1960s.

The illegitimacy rate of blacks at the turn of the century was less than it is of whites currently, for example.

[tempus fugit]

These parents hardly care about their children. they seek to get rid of them so they can go clubbing. Children are considered a burden. When your first instinct is to question whether or not to keep it, you are an unfit parent, and an unfit member of society. The purpose of collectivizing is both to eliminate the remnants of this type of degenerate half parenting. There is nothign wrong with destroying the family because the family has already imploded in upon itself and now is vestigial entirely. But changes happen in the hearts and minds of society, no amount of government sponsored incentive will keep the family together. this is why the family must come under the jurisdiction of the state for at least enough generations to allow reeducation and reintroduction of the family. The vestiges of the decaying and corrupted world must be wiped away before a new, better put in its place without the influence of judaism and soulless capitalism.

And is it wrong to separate a mother from her child? not in the scheme of things. Not when by doing so you guarantee that no mother will throw her child in a dumpster in the future, and no child will wonder who his father is.

This is so wrong it's shocking. Both in nature, in poor areas, or in rich area, animals of all types care about their kids, typically more than anything else in the world.

I'm sorry if that wasn't your experience as a kid, or isn't your experience as a parent.

Just once, try to take a kid away from his mother.....no wonder Socialism didn't work...it's so unnatural.

[Leif]

Pol Pot certainly didn't. All loyalties except to the party were outlawed. Children were taken away from their parents and raised as wards of the state. "Angkor is your family".

(cue argument about how Cambodian Communism wasn't really Communism at all but "Agrarian Socialism")

The problem with the Khmer Rouge and a few other areas is the difficulty in finding concrete knowledge about such places due to the tremendous unplausible propaganda associated with them. For instance, it is commonly asserted that the Khmer Rouge killed millions. Why did it kill millions? How did it induce so many to obey the regime if it did nothing but massacre and starve the population? The fact that the Khmer Rouge existed in a rural part of Southeast Asia gives us one clue to whatever socialism it may have had: it was utopian at best. This, coupled with the fact that Cambodia was invaded by the Vietnamese should be instructive in whatever generalizations we can make about it.

Historically speaking, socialism has failed in most places, but in those places in which it failed, it failed due to the adoption of insane extra-socialist ideas. That is not to say that the adoption of any extra-socialist idea is bad--hell, it is necessary for a government that uses socialist economics to look outside of socialism to find the values required for society to be whole; but insane, counter-biological ideas (such as taking away one's offspring) lead to failure. Quite obviously, socialism does not necessitate such practices.

That, and the fact that most places socialist/communist revolutions occurred were not industrialized, or what industry did exist was greatly damaged in the years leading up to the revolution. Nearly all of Asia fits into the first category, while Russia belonged to the latter. It is hard to take the means of production and redistribute wealth when such productive forces do not even exist...

There is nothing wrong with this, the idea is simply that the modern family is incapable of raising worthwhile children.

That is, at the core, a correct statement. Modern, complex, industrial societies require skills far greater than can be taught at home. Thus, professional schools, universities, etc. Biological parents will likely always serve as emotional and social guides for children, but that is only one part of growing. In the practical sense it isn't a loyalty issue but rather an educational one. Parents simply can't instruct their children to the degree necessary anymore. Parental roles have become largely redundant.

Where has it not failed? Cuba, North Korea? I'd say no, since regarding Cuba we have no idea how they are doing, and they seem to be warming up to taking money from capitalists, and North Korea is, to me, the humanitarian disaster of the last 2 decades.

Cuba does fairly well considering it's been under an economic embargo for nearly half a century. Yes, refugees do leave because there is not as much economic oppertunity as there should be, but one can hardly blame that on Cuba. North Korea is is managing things, but they have faced one disaster after another, first with their loss of trading partners following the collapse of the USSR, then the drought resulting in the famine of the 1990s.

In any case, if North Korea ever seems a bit "odd" you should remember the U.S. nearly obliterated their entire country in the 1950s, resulting in the "fortress state" they have today...

It's unfair that alot of the Left-wingers here are equating "right-wing" with "capitalism".

"Right-wing" is by definition the group that supports the status-quo, yes? Capitalism is the status quo, yes?

There is more to politics than just the management of economics.

That is a canard. The driving force of all politics is economics; all other arguments are secondary to or disguised forms of economic concerns.

Example. G.W. Bush did not invade Iraq because they were responsible for terrorism. Had he wanted to fight terrorism he would have invaded the home of most 9/11 hijackers- Saudi Arabia. But in truth Saudi Arabia is already a complacent market of global capitalism, unlike Hussein's Iraq, which has always refused to subordinate its national interests to the demands of the "free market," that is why it was invaded. (Afghanistan was more of a puppet show than anything else, today there is the same system of warlords in place as before, only different individuals.)

Iran and North Korea are other notable examples of what Fade calls "closed societies." Surprise, the Western media and governments do not think well of them either! I can guarantee you it's not because of their "civil rights abuses" or lack of "freedom," as there are plenty of other nations that have far worse qualities.

Traditionally the right was always pro-family and pro-nationalism (I stress "traditionally"). It has only been in the last while that ultra-capitalism has done away with the latter two.

Funnily enough, capitalism in its early stages employed young children, women, the elderly, and anyone else capable of mining coal or sewing gowns. I suppose the "traditional right" was staunchly against these things, along with the immoral profits being made from them?...Oh wait, it was the socialists that opposed these things. It was the socialists that wanted an eight hour work-day, no labor for children under ten years old, and decent wages. Without which the modern family would practically not exist due to the fact that Mummy and Daddy are working fourteen-hour days at the factory.

[jcs]

That is a canard. The driving force of all politics is economics
This is where fascists are superior to socialists: as Jack put it, fascism is "the elevation... of politics above economics."
We can concieve of someone performing an action out of something other than economic gain, correct? Hell, that is what socialism seems to support on some level--the abolition of individualistic gain in favor of... something else. This 'something else' ought to be not collective economic gain, but the subordination of economics to politics, and use of politics as a means to realize higher ideals.
"The driving force of all politics is economics"--and socialists object that socialism is not materialistic? It doesn't have to be, and there is something wrong with it if it cannot move beyond this.

[Leif]

Those figure correlated directly with the loosening of family values, the onslaught of socialist programs, and progressivism that infected the nation starting in the mid-1960s.

The closest thing the USA had to socialism was in the 1930s and it produced one of the best generations both in creativity and productivity ever seen. What you describe is the rise of consumerism.

[tempus fugit]

Modern, complex, industrial societies require skills far greater than can be taught at home. Thus, professional schools, universities, etc. Biological parents will likely always serve as emotional and social guides for children, but that is only one part of growing. In the practical sense it isn't a loyalty issue but rather an educational one. Parents simply can't instruct their children to the degree necessary anymore. Parental roles have become largely redundant.

Schools have existed in Western societies for millenia. Does that mean there there hasn't been a time in 3000 years that parents can raise their kids?

You clearly haven't been to many schools, as you'd see that schools do NO training on morality, etiquette, or developing a sense of patriotism, all of which are necessary for an country to exist.

Cuba does fairly well considering it's been under an economic embargo for nearly half a century.

Nice way of saying, "In order to improve its plight, Cuba engages in limited trade with capitalistic nations, and yearns to do so more."

North Korea is is managing things, but they have faced one disaster after another, first with their loss of trading partners following the collapse of the USSR, then the drought resulting in the famine of the 1990s.

1) To say that North Korea is managing things is literally laughable.
2) Many, many countries have faces FAR worse natural disasters.
3) LOL........they lost their trading partner, the USSR??!?!? That's the whole point: the USSR failed because it was Socialist!

In any case, if North Korea ever seems a bit "odd" you should remember the U.S. nearly obliterated their entire country in the 1950s, resulting in the "fortress state" they have today...

LOL.....when did we nearly obliterate North Korea??!?! I hope you aren't referring to the Korean War of 1950-1953? LOL......You need to look at Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Tokyo, London, Pearl Harbor, Paris, etc.....they were obliterated about the same time.


Funnily enough, capitalism in its early stages employed young children, women, the elderly, and anyone else capable of mining coal or sewing gowns. I suppose the "traditional right" was staunchly against these things, along with the immoral profits being made from them?...Oh wait, it was the socialists that opposed these things. It was the socialists that wanted an eight hour work-day, no labor for children under ten years old, and decent wages. Without which the modern family would practically not exist due to the fact that Mummy and Daddy are working fourteen-hour days at the factory.

No disrespect intended, but are you still in college? If so, take an economics course: most of those things occurred during the time that real wages in the US were literally up 5% a year. Supply and demand cause many of those benefits.

[tempus fugit]

The closest thing the USA had to socialism was in the 1930s and it produced one of the best generations both in creativity and productivity ever seen. What you describe is the rise of consumerism.

What did it produce, specifically.....other than the Great Depression, an activist government, and a gigantic government, I don't remember the 1930's being a fantastic time for the US.

[Leif]

This is where fascists are superior to socialists: as Jack put it, fascism is "the elevation... of politics above economics."

...and yet, the history of fasicsm is one of tremendous economic action.

We can concieve of someone performing an action out of something other than economic gain, correct? Hell, that is what socialism seems to support on some level--the abolition of individualistic gain in favor of... something else. This 'something else' ought to be not collective economic gain, but the subordination of economics to politics, and use of politics as a means to realize higher ideals.

I am not describing ideals but existence, history, and reality. Individual cooperation with collective needs benefits individuals in the long run. That is why socialism continues to grow, that is why it is inevitable that it will replace systems that must constantly attack themselves to achieve higher efficiency.

"The driving force of all politics is economics"--and socialists object that socialism is not materialistic? It doesn't have to be, and there is something wrong with it if it cannot move beyond this.

There is nothing wrong with acknowledging the workings of society, politics, etc.

[tempus fugit]

The closest thing the USA had to socialism was in the 1930s and it produced one of the best generations both in creativity and productivity ever seen. What you describe is the rise of consumerism.

The peak of American Liberalism is almost universally recognized as 1965. I am correlating events within 5-10 years of this peak, and you are looking back 30-40 years, during which time a Great Depression, a World War, a major Asian war, and a Cold war. From a statistical or econometric standpoint, correlating the 1930s and the 1970s is ludicrous.

[Jonathan]

"Right-wing" is by definition the group that supports the status-quo, yes?
Not necessarily. There can be, as Perun once called himself, "revolutionary reactionaries".

Capitalism is the status quo, yes?
Not necessarily. Consumerism certainly isn't.

Do you disagree that Nationalism and Social conservatism(including traditions and family structures) are usually associated with the right?

That is a canard. The driving force of all politics is economics;
Dialectic Materialists would think so. I don't.

all other arguments are secondary to or disguised forms of economic concerns.
I know that you're (along with the other Marx followers) recone that "the class struggle turns the wheels of history" et al. But this isn't necessarily the case. Material prosperity and/or equality should be a means to an end (happiness, contentment, whatever).

Example. G.W. Bush
America is currently driven by consumerism. Thus the G.W. Bush example doesn't necessarily apply across the board.

did not invade Iraq because they were responsible for terrorism. Had he wanted to fight terrorism he would have invaded the home of most 9/11 hijackers- Saudi Arabia. But in truth Saudi Arabia is already a complacent market of global capitalism, unlike Hussein's Iraq, which has always refused to subordinate its national interests to the demands of the "free market," that is why it was invaded.
Or one could argue that it was to take control of the source of alot of Europe's Oil, thus puting the US in a more powerful position vis-a-vis Europe which can be used to many ends.

Funnily enough, capitalism in its early stages employed young children, women, the elderly, and anyone else capable of mining coal or sewing gowns.
When did Capitalism begin Ymir? Your description seems rooted in the Industrial/Colonial age.

I suppose the "traditional right" was staunchly against these things, along with the immoral profits being made from them?
Them? Is Capitalism just the conspiracy of the Bourgeoisie?

...Oh wait, it was the socialists that opposed these things.
I think you'll find that the Church(among others) were against exploitation, yet the Church has always been associated with the right.

It was the socialists that wanted an eight hour work-day, no labor for children under ten years old, and decent wages.
In the Irish Free State of the 1920s, the Right-Wing Cumann na nGaedheal party which were in power made it compulsory for all children to go to school until age 14. It was the Irish Socialists who were most against this. They said that children should be alowed to leave school at whatever age they wanted because poor families needed their children to provide an income!

Without which the modern family would practically not exist due to the fact that Mummy and Daddy are working fourteen-hour days at the factory.
This is only based on your Industrial Revolution style interpretation of Capitalism.

BTW, I'm not a Laissez-Faire Capitalist.

[Ixtab]

Pol Pot certainly didn't. All loyalties except to the party were outlawed. Children were taken away from their parents and raised as wards of the state. "Angkor is your family".

(cue argument about how Cambodian Communism wasn't really Communism at all but "Agrarian Socialism")Almost everything one hears about Democratic Kampuchea is lies. I prefer not to make too many judgements on that country.

Historically speaking, socialism has failed in most placesHow so?

North Korea is, to me, the humanitarian disaster of the last 2 decades.How so? To me, North Korea is a remarkable success story of how Socialism can be achieved.

1) To say that North Korea is managing things is literally laughable.Why is it laughable?

2) Many, many countries have faces FAR worse natural disasters.You don't know what you are talking about.
North Korea's present problems cannot be reduced to a single factor:

(1) A series of natural disasters in the 1990s.
(2)Economic sanctions -- the country has difficulty importing fuel for energy production and food on commercial terms, for instance.
(3)A dearth of arable land -- these are naturally nomadic regions (much of the land, additionally, was damaged as a result of the natural disasters).
(4)Loss of socialist market relations (fall of international communism).
(5)Military threat imposed by the US (means diverting energies and resources to maintaining the standing army to deter and off-set a terrorist attack and terrorist invasion of the country by the US, energies which would otherwise be devoted to economic development).

Before all of these factors were operative, North Korea was the 14th most prosperous country in the world, according to National Geographic. I would say North Korea is more of a success story than it is a 'humanitarian disaster'.

3) LOL........they lost their trading partner, the USSR??!?!?Yes.

That's the whole point: the USSR failed because it was Socialist!Evidence? The USSR which collapsed had undergone certain economic reforms in the 1960s, which re-introduced profit as the regulator of production, among other things. Before this time, production was extremely efficient, the USSR was even close to surpassing the US technologically in the 1950s. Problems only began to accumulate since the reforms, until the fall of the USSR.

[Leif]

Schools have existed in Western societies for millenia. Does that mean there there hasn't been a time in 3000 years that parents can raise their kids?

It is no longer possible for parents to teach skills to their children necessary for todays society and continue to be productive members themselves. Egyptian children did not need to be literate nor know mathematics nor know basic natural science skills nor need expertise in engineering or any other modern field of work.

You clearly haven't been to many schools, as you'd see that schools do NO training on morality, etiquette, or developing a sense of patriotism, all of which are necessary for an country to exist.

Did I say that modern schools did any of this? :rolleyes:

Nice way of saying, "In order to improve its plight, Cuba engages in limited trade with capitalistic nations, and yearns to do so more."

When has socialism been against the exchange of resources, i.e. trade? :rolleyes:

1) To say that North Korea is managing things is literally laughable.

Excuse me, but North Korea survived a war that resulted in the loss of countless lives and destroyed nearly every major city. They continued to survive despite losing one of their main trading partners. They then survived a terrible famine resulting in atleast several hundred thousand dead, and possibly up to three million. I'd say their continued existence proves they are "managing things."

2) Many, many countries have faces FAR worse natural disasters.

LOL.....when did we nearly obliterate North Korea??!?! I hope you aren't referring to the Korean War of 1950-1953? LOL......You need to look at Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Tokyo, London, Pearl Harbor, Paris, etc.....they were obliterated about the same time.

Read this: http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=2785

And this:

On the recent famine:

Page 179
"On the sticky sumer day of June 26, 1995," Don Oberdorfer wrote, "the skies over [North Kopea] darkened. Rains began to pound the earth, rains that were heavy, steady, and unrelenting and that soon turned into a deluge of biblical proportions." The DPRK Bureau of Hydro Meteorological Service recorded 23 inches of rain in ten days, and in some areas as much as 18 inches of rain fell in a single day, bringing floods considered to be "the worst in a century." Rain was three to five times the normal level. By the time the storms stopped in mid-August, the North Korean government said that some 5.4 million people had been displaced, 330,000 hectares of of agricultural land destroyed, 1.9 million tons of grains lost, with the total cost of the flood damage pegged at 15$ billion. Torrential rains came again in 1996, doing less, but still very severe damage. A prolonged drought followed in 1997, accompanied by a large tidal wave crashing to the shore.
The extent of famine-related mortality in North Korea remains unclear. Estimates vary from 200,000 to 300,000- thuoght to be the lower range by Peter Hayes, director of Natutilus Institute, to an uppermost figure of 3.5 million, based on interviews with refugees in China. A close study by American demographers put the figure between 600,000 and one million. Such figures do not apply to the whole country, however. Regional differentiation is great in North Korea, with 10 percent of the population living in the highly centralized and much privileged capital. Foreign travelers have not witnessed starvation conditions in Pyongyang, and an international delegation that visited the upper east coast, to break ground for the light-water reactors envisioned in the October 1994 nuclear framework, did not see much evidence of famine and malnutrition...

Domestic sources of energy- coal and hydroelectric power were also severely impaired by the capricious weather. Energy experts from the Nautilus Institute put it like that.

Coalmines were flooded (some mines producing the best quality coal, near Anju, were on the coast below sea level to start with). Hydroelectric production was affected by floodwaters that damaged turbines and silted up reservoirs, then by drought that reduced water supplies below the levels needed to generate power. Electric transmission and distribution lines were damaged, as were roads and transportation equipment. Heavy erosion and scavenging for food denuded landscapes, reducing the availability of bio-mass for energy use.

This exacerbated the problem that the DPRK's economic partners in Eastern Europe had just experienced a major political collapse and were no longer importing materials from the DPRK at the same prices.



3) LOL........they lost their trading partner, the USSR??!?!? That's the whole point: the USSR failed because it was Socialist!

Socialism causes economic failure? Interesting:

For decades the North far outstripped the South in economic development. In the 1950s and 1960s, American officials in the South never stopped talking about the ROK's [Republic of Korea] basket-case economy and the huge challenge posed by a North whose heavy industry was growing rapidly. Scholars and pundits wrung their hands over this challenging dilemma. Inherting heavy industry from Japan and getting it renovated by Curtis Lemay's bombers in the 1950s (after which the Soviet bloc countries contributed a great deal to rebuilding the flattened factories), North Korea was always the most industrialized and urbanized of the Asian communist countries. (Today agricultural pursuits encompass about 20 percent of the population, compared with 60 to 70 percent in China and a higher percentage in Vietnam.)

No disrespect intended, but are you still in college? If so, take an economics course: most of those things occurred during the time that real wages in the US were literally up 5% a year. Supply and demand cause many of those benefits.

What did it produce, specifically.....other than the Great Depression, an activist government, and a gigantic government, I don't remember the 1930's being a fantastic time for the US.

The peak of American Liberalism is almost universally recognized as 1965. I am correlating events within 5-10 years of this peak, and you are looking back 30-40 years, during which time a Great Depression, a World War, a major Asian war, and a Cold war. From a statistical or econometric standpoint, correlating the 1930s and the 1970s is ludicrous.

...the loosening of family values, the onslaught of socialist programs, and progressivism that infected the nation starting in the mid-1960s.


You accuse the 1960s of being the "onslaught of socialism" when it was in truth the onslaught of social-liberalism; two very different things. Widespread socialism began in the United States with the New Deal... must I convince you of the value that arose from that generation? Their strong ethics? Their incredible achievements? The countless inventions we owe to them?

[Leif]

Negative rep point from jcs:

I don't feel much like arguing with your statements here, mostly because nothing said is worth discussing. Some of it is unprovable nonsense, too. So, being mildly annoyed, I'll opt to attack your reputation. --With love, jcs:)

Why is this not worth discussing? What is unprovable nonsense? :confused:

[jcs]

How so?
I'm mostly thinking of the USSR, which collapsed, and China, which isn't really socialist any more. The only remotely successful socialist nation I can think of is North Korea.
But socialism's failure is not merely of an economic order, which is the standard by which the success or lack thereof of most countries is gauged. The failure of socialism can be attributed to the fact that it has not moved beyond economics. On an ethical level, a socialism sans egalitarianism--a socialism which sets the restoration of health, happiness, and order as its aim--is sensible. But ethics are seemingly used only propagandistically by the proletariat to gain power or whatnot during the revolutionary period. Following this, socialism turns to politics, turns to economics, and subordinates health, happiness, etc. to progress, as if progress brought about such things. Invert this: progress is health and happiness, and 'progress' on the economic level will be the consequence of a healthy, happy populace.
(Of course, one can witness economic progress without such things, but you get the materialistic, 'capitalistic' version of progress without happiness, the misidentification of happiness with pleasure, and a diseased society.)

Socialism's failure is that it has not fulfilled its promises. Something is lacking in the approach.

[jcs]

Negative rep point from jcs
That was in response to this post (http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=33428&postcount=28), by the way.

[Ixtab]

I'm mostly thinking of the USSR, which collapsed,...That is a perfect example of the inefficiency of the capitalist system that the USSR had adopted since the economic reforms in the 1960s; what followed the collapse -- a horrendous decline in every aspect of social life in what was once a most prosperous country -- is a second example of the shortcomings of Capitalism. The entire history of the USSR -- yes, including its fall -- is a case study indicating the superiority of the Socialist system.

... and China, which isn't really socialist any more.The core of its economy is owned in a socialist fashion. This is partly why it is so successful. Because of its planned economy, it was able to navigate its way through the economic crises which devasted the rest of that region.

But socialism's failure is not merely of an economic order, which is the standard by which the success or lack thereof of most countries is gauged. The failure of socialism can be attributed to the fact that it has not moved beyond economics.You went on to describe this, but you never offered much in the way of evidence.

[jcs]

You went on to describe this, but you never offered much in the way of evidence.
You're asking me to provide evidence for the lack of extra-economic idealism. If you can demonstrate that socialist economics (and politics) have been subordinated in some instance to something higher, legitimately higher (kind of an ambiguous phrase, but so be it), I'll say that socialism has been successful at some point, and criticize socialism for its lack of producing more of that, rather than for its lack of producing any of that.

[tempus fugit]

How so? To me, North Korea is a remarkable success story of how Socialism can be achieved.

I don't know how, precisely, Socialism was achieved in North Korea. However, I do know that North Korea is highly economically stunted, when compared to South Korea. I also know that if North Korea were truly committed to Socialism, they would not feel the need to trade with capitalist countries, and therefore sanctions from capitalist countries would not impact them.

You don't know what you are talking about.
North Korea's present problems cannot be reduced to a single factor:

(1) A series of natural disasters in the 1990s, and lack of assistance.
(2)Economic sanctions -- the country has difficulty importing fuel for energy production and food on commercial terms, for instance.
(3)A dearth of arable land -- these are naturally nomadic regions (much of the land, additionally, was damaged as a result of the natural disasters).
(4)Loss of socialist market relations (fall of international communism).
(5)Military threat imposed by the US (means diverting energies and resources to maintaining the standing army to deter and off-set a terrorist attack and terrorist invasion of the country by the US, energies which would otherwise be devoted to economic development).

Before all of these factors were operative, North Korea was the 14th most prosperous country in the world, according to National Geographic. I would say North Korea is more of a success story than it is a 'humanitarian disaster'.

When did these factors become operative? I notice that (1), (2), (4), and (5) all relate to trade (or lack thereof) with capitalist nations. Should a truly Socialist country even *want* or *need* to trade with capitalist nations?

Evidence? The USSR which collapsed had undergone certain economic reforms in the 1960s, which re-introduced profit as the regulator of production, among other things. Before this time, production was extremely efficient, the USSR was even close to surpassing the US technologically in the 1950s; problems only began to accumulate since the reforms, culminating in the collapse of the USSR. The collapse of the USSR had more to do with its semi-capitalistic economy.

Well, OK, I'm still waiting for an example of a Socialist success story.

[jcs]

Should a truly Socialist country even *want* or *need* to trade with capitalist nations?
Should a foreign nation's economic policy dictate whether a given nation wants or needs to trade? Would it be cool with you if socialist nations traded with other socialist nations? If so, then why shouldn't they trade with capitalist nations? Trade is trade; I don't see how a foreign nation's ideology alters one's need to trade, if one does in fact need to trade.

I do know that North Korea is highly economically stunted, when compared to South Korea.
This sort of mentality needs to die. What does the economy matter? Why should we care if its stunted or not? Should countries be trying to compete in some meaningless game? Economic comparisons are pissing contests. If people are provided for and reasonably happy, it doesn't matter if one's economy is stunted.
And if you're economy cannot provide for the people, don't try to improve the economy until you consider lowering the population...

[Ixtab]

I don't know how, precisely, Socialism was achieved in North Korea. However, I do know that North Korea is highly economically stunted, ...But do you know the causes? Military spending, sanctions, natural disasters, the decline of the Soviet bloc as a whole.

"The gross industrial output value increased 10 per cent last year [this is faster than the 1-2% growth rate in the UK and faster than south Korea currently] as compared with the year before last and the production of major industrial products recorded a remarkable increase: The production of power went up 21 per cent, that of lead and zinc 76 percent, iron ore 46 percent and cement 27 percent."
Continues: http://www.korea-is-one.org/article.php3?id_article=121

Some information on the standard of living:
"Infant mortality: Myanmar had 79 deaths per 1,000 live births; North Korea had 23 per 1,000, South Korea was lower with 10 per 1,000.

"Percentage of income spent on housing: Myanmar ranked 87th at 10%, South Korea 140th at 4.1%, North Korea 164th at .8%.

"Percentage of income spent on health care: The U.S. ranked first at 17%, South Korea 35th at 5%, Myanmar 92nd at 2.4%. North Korea was not listed. Health care there is free.

"Hospital beds: North Korea was third highest at 135 per 10,000 population; the U.S. was 85th at 41 per 10,000, South Korea was 95th at 34 per 10,000, and Myanmar was 200th at 6 per 10,000.

"Population per physician: Myanmar's ratio is 3,485 people to 1 doctor, South Korea is 784:1, North Korea is better at 370:1, and the rich U.S. is practically the same: 365:1.

"Life expectancy in both North and South Korea was the same: 69 years. The U.S. wasn't much higher--72 years, while Myanmar was 58 years.

"Of the three Asian countries, North Korea had the lowest death rate--5.3 per 1,000, while in Myanmar it was 9.9 and in South Korea 6.4.

"North Korea did fantastically well on literacy: 95%. The U.S. had 95.5% and South Korea 98%. Myanmar was 83%.

"Population with access to safe drinking water (1994-95): North Korea is listed with 38 other countries at 100%. Only 90% of people in the U.S. have access to safe drinking water, according to these figures. In South Korea, the number is 89%, and in Myanmar, only 39%."

Source: Illustrated Book of World Rankings 2001, 5th edition, for South Korea, North Korea, and a few for the United States, as well as for Myanmar (Burma)

... when compared to South Korea.Ignoring the fact that North Korea outperformed the south for the greater part of the south Korea/north Korea division, this is an absurd comparison. The United States made huge investments in the build-up of the south as an import-export economy, while at the same time imposing sanctions on the North.

I also know that if North Korea were truly committed to Socialism, they would not feel the need to trade with capitalist countries, and therefore sanctions from capitalist countries would not impact them.Most of the countries of the world are heavily dependent upon the outside world for raw materials. I think that only Russia/USSR, USA and maybe Brazil would be able to build a totally self-sufficient socialism in one country (China and India are also heavily dependent on the outside world for raw materials). Resource rich countries like Venezuela and Saudi Arabia could also build Socialism in one country but would depend on external trade.

--When did these factors become operative?
--Natural disasters - 1990s
--Collapse of communism (loss of socialist market relations) - 1990s
--Dearth of arable land - throughout its history; naturally nomadic regions
--Threat imposed by the US/economic sanctions - since the Fatherland Liberation War (Korean War).

Should a truly Socialist country even *want* or *need* to trade with capitalist nations?Absolutely.

Well, OK, I'm still waiting for an example of a Socialist success story.The USSR, China, and the DPRK are the ones that I have studied.

[Helios Panoptes]

You clearly haven't been to many schools, as you'd see that schools do NO training on morality, etiquette, or developing a sense of patriotism, all of which are necessary for an country to exist.

Did I say that modern schools did any of this?

I would say that nobody is doing any of this. Not only are parents unable to impart necessary skills for survival in the modern world, for obvious reasons, but they fail to provide the ethical education necessary to create a functional citizen. This is why the state, in its better judgment, must intervene.

[Leif]

That was in response to this post, by the way.

Okay. I somewhat understand your reluctance to debate mere opinions, that is the best course of action, but apart from the "shoulds," how would one measure the capacity of a people, fascist or socialist, in their ability to go beyond material incentive? The number of suicides committed in the name of the nation of people? Suicide bombings, perhaps?

However, I do know that North Korea is highly economically stunted, when compared to South Korea.

...Did you ignore the excerpts I posted regarding the fact that North Korea was outproducing the South for decades until the recent famine?

I also know that if North Korea were truly committed to Socialism, they would not feel the need to trade with capitalist countries, and therefore sanctions from capitalist countries would not impact them.

Ixabert already dealt with this question, but I would like to pose another.

If socialism is so inefficient, unnatural, and predisposed to fail, why do capitalist nations always resort to economic embargoes and military measures against them? Why did the U.S. government feel necessary to send our military into multiple countries in Asia in order to "stop the spread of communism." Why was socialism a threat if it was so self-destructive?...Perhaps it wasn't?

[Thomas777]

Communism/Socialism in theory is an internationalist movement. In practice, all of the Communist states that have existed were really National Bolshevik states.

It would seem that the nationalist ethos pervades any Socialist/Communist system...hence, pure Marxism is what fadethebutcher would refer to as a "fantasy ideology". Pure Marxism is completely antithetical to human nature.

So, in response to the initial quiery, No...I do not think that Communists are anti-Family. I think that the Frankfurt School social radicals are staunchly anti-family...but they are categorically different than Marxist-Leninists, Maoists, and the like.

[jcs]

how would one measure the capacity of a people, fascist or socialist, in their ability to go beyond material incentive?
How does one measure a quality? How do you measure happiness? Hand me the euphorometer.

[Leif]

Communism/Socialism in theory is an internationalist movement. In practice, all of the Communist states that have existed were really National Bolshevik states.

The USSR was a union of many nationalities.

It would seem that the nationalist ethos pervades any Socialist/Communist system...hence, pure Marxism is what fadethebutcher would refer to as a "fantasy ideology". Pure Marxism is completely antithetical to human nature.

What is "pure Marxism" and how is it antithetical to human nature? What is human nature?

How does one measure a quality? How do you measure happiness? Hand me the euphorometer.

Happiness is a lack of pain. Pain can be measured by various symptoms and signs. If one sees someone cringing on the side of a ship vomiting over the rails, one doesn't wonder, "Is this individual experiencing discomfort?"

If you don't know how to measure whether or not someone is operating outside of material incentive then why advocate the pursuance of such a condition?

[jcs]

Happiness is a lack of pain.
Incorrect. Ask Fade to explain the basics of Aristotleanism to you.

If you don't know how to measure whether or not someone is operating outside of material incentive then why advocate the pursuance of such a condition?
This is why socialism is characterized as being materialistic. How does one gauge a sense of fulfillment? Can we look at your stool to determine if you're happy with life?

[tempus fugit]

I would say that nobody is doing any of this. Not only are parents unable to impart necessary skills for survival in the modern world, for obvious reasons, but they fail to provide the ethical education necessary to create a functional citizen. This is why the state, in its better judgment, must intervene.

Because the state is better able to provide a moral education than the family? Where have you seen this in play?

It seems that Socialism is so unnatural to me.

[tempus fugit]

...Did you ignore the excerpts I posted regarding the fact that North Korea was outproducing the South for decades until the recent famine?

Well, apparently, since millions are starving, they didn't allocate their money well.

If socialism is so inefficient, unnatural, and predisposed to fail, why do capitalist nations always resort to economic embargoes and military measures against them? Why did the U.S. government feel necessary to send our military into multiple countries in Asia in order to "stop the spread of communism." Why was socialism a threat if it was so self-destructive?...Perhaps it wasn't?

Because socialist countries have a history of attacking other countries, aiding other socialist nations in warfare, or controlling other weaker countries and making them socialist.

[tempus fugit]

Happiness is a lack of pain.

This seems very very primitive.

[Helios Panoptes]

It would be best for the family to provide ethical training, but we, as a society, have lost our way and this is absent. Since the smaller social units(the family) are failing, it is incumbent on the state to reestablish the ethical foundation. Once this is done, control can be loosened. Education is the most important tool at our disposal to restore and then maintain prosperity. We must reintegrate the family as an institution of ethical education into our ethos, then it will be self-sustaining.

[tempus fugit]

Have you EVER heard of a gov't loosening control on ANYTHING? A socialist one (and I'm not talking because the gov't collapsed)?

[Ixtab]

Communism/Socialism in theory is an internationalist movement. In practice, all of the Communist states that have existed were really National Bolshevik states.

It would seem that the nationalist ethos pervades any Socialist/Communist system...hence, pure Marxism is what fadethebutcher would refer to as a "fantasy ideology". Pure Marxism is completely antithetical to human nature.

So, in response to the initial quiery, No...I do not think that Communists are anti-Family. I think that the Frankfurt School social radicals are staunchly anti-family...but they are categorically different than Marxist-Leninists, Maoists, and the like.I essentially agree with you.

Because the state is better able to provide a moral education than the family? Where have you seen this in play?Can it be denied that the State has done good to the community by converting the Parent from a Monarch who can do whatever he wants with his children, who can abuse them and neglect them, make them work in sweatshops, and so on - into a constitutional monarch, so to speak - in other words to diminish private ownership in the family through state interference?

Socialism simply completes the process; it disposes with familial 'Monarchism' altogether. If any Socialist has proposed to "abolish" the family, he chose his words ill; Socialism merely puts the family on a public basis and under proper sageguards. It makes the parent accountable to the community, for the upbringing of children shouldn't be left solely to the whims of philanthropy of irresponsible private individuals. But putting the family on a public basis is so different from the modern private family, that one is tempted to say that Socialism, in a sense, "abolishes" the family.

[Ahknaton]

The problem with the Khmer Rouge and a few other areas is the difficulty in finding concrete knowledge about such places due to the tremendous unplausible propaganda associated with them. I agree that some of the figures are likely to have been inflated. However the stories of children being removed from their families are plausible because this was an explicit part of the policy of Angkor, not something that happened in secret. Pol Pot declared that the population of the cities (which really just means Phnom Penh) had been corrupted by bourgeoise values and needed to be reeducated.
For instance, it is commonly asserted that the Khmer Rouge killed millions. Why did it kill millions?
Pol Pot swept into power because of the bombing of Cambodian villages by American B-52s in the Vietnam War who flew over the border and dropped their excess payload into the jungle before returning to base. The Cambodian Communists took advantage of the anger generated by this and blamed it on the city folk (Sihanouk wasn't exactly an ally of the Americans, Cambodia was supposedly neutral, but remember we are talking about illiterate peasants here)
How did it induce so many to obey the regime if it did nothing but massacre and starve the population? Terror mostly. Also it should be noted that it only lasted for 3 or 4 years before the Vietnamese invaded. The classic cycle of pillage wealth of the previous system->temporary good life->swift decline
The fact that the Khmer Rouge existed in a rural part of Southeast Asia gives us one clue to whatever socialism it may have had: it was utopian at best. This, coupled with the fact that Cambodia was invaded by the Vietnamese should be instructive in whatever generalizations we can make about it.
I more or less agree with this
Almost everything one hears about Democratic Kampuchea is lies. I prefer not to make too many judgements on that country.
I've travelled to Cambodia as a back-packer. It's hard to know whether everything that it said about it is true, but Cheoung-Ek (the killing fields) definitely existed - the piles of skulls are on display, as are the torture centres where opponents were tortured (sometimes to death). Plenty of Cambodians told me stories about how "Pol Pot crazy" and "Pol Pot killed my parents" etc, and not always in the context of begging money from me.

[Ixtab]

There is no evidence that Pol Pot killed anyone, witnessed any of the killings, ordered any of the killings, or even approved of any of the killings. He wasn't even convicted of any killing in absentia. I challenge anyone to produce a jot of documentation to the contrary.

Furthermore, there were three distinct, competing factions of the Khmer Rouge, each with its own power bases. The Khmer Rouge was not monolithic, and Pol Pot was not even the leader of the Khmer Rouge until long after most of the killings took place.

Just before the fall of Democratic Kampuchea (1970-1975), the Khmer Rouge was beginning to form into a single entity, after the majority of the political executions occurred. Leader Hu Num of the Khmer Rouge of the south and soutwest in the Elephant and Cardomom Mountains liquidated the group headed by So Phim of the Khmer Rouge which occupied the densely populated eastern provinces between Mekong River and the frontier with Vietnam.

The Khmer Rouge diverted the city dwellers from what were at the time unproductive activities under the conditions, and got them to participate in production, producing that of which they were in dire need -- food. This saved far more lives than it harmed,.

The killings that did occur were necessary for cleansing Democratic Kumpchea (1970-1975) from the reactionaries, colonialists, and parasites that had plagued Kampuchea for many years. The liquidation of the Vietnamese colonialists and expansionists was justified, because the Kampuchean people, being victims of the acts of aggression and annexation of the Vietnamese and having successively lost an important part of their Kampuchea Krom territory, understandably fostered a deep hatred against the Vietnamese--"annexationists and swallowers of Kampuchea's territory" as leader Samphan of the Khmer Rouge expressed it. The extermination and deportation of the Vietnamese colonialists was supported by the overwhelming majority of the Khmer people. There was a long standing historical animosity between the two peoples. Indeed, the Khmer Republic (1970-1975), headed by Lon Nol, pursued similar policies. His regime reduced the number of Vietnamese in Cambodia from approximately 450,000 in early 1970 to 160,000. Finally, the killings of the capitalists, feudalists, and other social regressors were justified because the peasantry were organised as the ruling class in Democratic Kampuchea.

Most of the deaths at that time are attributable to the famine, and the famine was not a deliberate act of genocide by the Khmer Rouge, but was induced by US bombings and the deleterious policies of Lon Nol in the days of the Khmer Republic (1970-1975). Most of the fertile areas were marked black from the inundation. The deterioration of the economy accelerated as a result of the extensive economic aid prior to 1975.

[Leif]

This is why socialism is characterized as being materialistic. How does one gauge a sense of fulfillment? Can we look at your stool to determine if you're happy with life?

Answer my question, please. If one can't know whether or not one is acting beyond material motives, why should one pursue such a goal?

Because the state is better able to provide a moral education than the family? Where have you seen this in play?

The ancient Chinese used moral/ethical texts as the exams to become civil servants.

Well, apparently, since millions are starving, they didn't allocate their money well.

That is akin to saying that a man hit by a drunk driver that plowed into his home should have invested in x-ray goggles to dodge the incoming truck. And no, millions are not currently starving, the famine ended some time ago.

Because socialist countries have a history of attacking other countries, aiding other socialist nations in warfare, or controlling other weaker countries and making them socialist.

These are not socialist characteristics but charactistics of all political unions / nations. So why did capitalist nations find it necessary to use such methods against even small nations such as Cuba, Vietnam, and Korea? According to you they should have collapsed under their own weight a long time ago even without political pressure, yet, in the face of tremendous pressure, they survive.

This seems very very primitive.

We are dealing with the concept of happiness- not organic chemistry.

Have you EVER heard of a gov't loosening control on ANYTHING? A socialist one (and I'm not talking because the gov't collapsed)?

Um. . . China has privatized 1/5 of its industry in the past twenty years.

[Ahknaton]

The killings that did occur were necessary for cleansing Democratic Kumpchea (1970-1975) from the reactionaries, colonialists, and parasites that had plagued Kampuchea for many years. The liquidation of the Vietnamese colonialists and expansionists was justified, because the Kampuchean people, being victims of the acts of aggression and annexation of the Vietnamese and having successively lost an important part of their Kampuchea Krom territory, understandably fostered a deep hatred against the Vietnamese--"annexationists and swallowers of Kampuchea's territory" as leader Samphan of the Khmer Rouge expressed it. The extermination and deportation of the Vietnamese colonialists was supported by the overwhelming majority of the Khmer people. There was a long standing historical animosity between the two peoples. Indeed, the Khmer Republic (1970-1975), headed by Lon Nol, pursued similar policies. His regime reduced the number of Vietnamese in Cambodia from approximately 450,000 in early 1970 to 160,000. Finally, the killings of the capitalists, feudalists, and other social regressors were justified because the peasantry were organised as the ruling class in Democratic Kampuchea.
So in effect you are justifying mass murder on the basis that the victims were "colonialists"?

Not worth responding to.

[Ixtab]

So in effect you are justifying mass murder on the basis that the victims were "colonialists"?I am disappointed. I guess you just can't refute me. granted, not persisting with false claims is a mark of intellectual integrity, which you have.
And to answer your question: no.

[tempus fugit]

Because the state is better able to provide a moral education than the family? Where have you seen this in play?

The ancient Chinese used moral/ethical texts as the exams to become civil servants.

You base the destruction on the family at least partly on a 3,000 year old example?


And no, millions are not currently starving, the famine ended some time ago.

Terrific......


These are not socialist characteristics but charactistics of all political unions / nations. So why did capitalist nations find it necessary to use such methods against even small nations such as Cuba, Vietnam, and Korea? According to you they should have collapsed under their own weight a long time ago even without political pressure, yet, in the face of tremendous pressure, they survive.

When was the last time a democracy attacked a democracy?

Cuba was a rock in the stream that the Soviets could stand on to launch a nuke at us.

North Korea is collapsing under its own weight.....of course it won't take a short time. However, clearly the evidence suggests that Socialism doesn't work. The long term damage from Communism is still being felt.....I recommend you go to Ukraine, etc., and you'll see the pain that still exists.

Um. . . China has privatized 1/5 of its industry in the past twenty years.

No why on earth would they do that?!?!?!

[Ixtab]

Why are you ignoring all of my arguments (which, with slight verbal changes, demolish most of your arguments against Ymir)?

North Korea is collapsing under its own weightActually, the conditions have been imporving since the 1990s. I have provided you with some evidence for this in a previous page.

However, clearly the evidence suggests that Socialism doesn't work.I have already disproved this claim.

I recommend you go to Ukraine, etc., and you'll see the pain that still exists.You will see a horrendous decline in every aspect of social life as a result of the restoration of capitalism.

[Ahknaton]

I am disappointed. I guess you just can't refute me. granted, not persisting with false claims is a mark of intellectual integrity, which you have.
And to answer your question: no.
I will concede your point that there is no proof that Pol Pot personally killed anybody.

However, statements such as "The liquidation of the Vietnamese colonialists and expansionists was justified" are moral judgements, not statements of fact. In my opinion they are indefensible, and I do not wish to argue them.

Also, the claim I made in this thread was that Pol Pot oversaw a program whereby Cambodian children were taken away from their biological parents and made wards of the state. So far the only arguments against this claim are general dismissal of all negative information about Cambodia on the grounds that some of it has been proven to be propaganda. This is unconvincing.

I never made any claims about millions killed, by Pol Pot or anyone else. But there were killings, as you acknowledge.

[Ixtab]

I will concede your point that there is no proof that Pol Pot personally killed anybody.

However, statements such as "The liquidation of the Vietnamese colonialists and expansionists was justified" are moral judgements, not statements of fact. In my opinion they are indefensible, and I do not wish to argue them.

Also, the claim I made in this thread was that Pol Pot oversaw a program whereby Cambodian children were taken away from their biological parents and made wards of the state. So far the only arguments against this claim are general dismissal of all negative information about Cambodia on the grounds that some of it has been proven to be propaganda. This is unconvincing.

I never made any claims about millions killed, by Pol Pot or anyone else. But there were killings, as you acknowledge.You do not think it justifed to attack invaders and colonisers of your own country?
Such were the Vietnamese in Democratic Kampuchea: invaders and occupiers of Kampuchean territory.

[Ahknaton]

You do not think it justifed to attack invaders and colonisers of your own country?
Such were the Vietnamese in Democratic Kampuchea: invaders and occupiers of Kampuchean territory.The Vietnamese victims of liquidations after Sihanouk's regime fell were mostly civilians. Defending yourself against an invading army is justified. Forced mass deportations of civilians also (under some circumstances). But what we are talking about here is mass murder of (mostly) civilians.

Do you think Native Americans were justified in attacking White settlers?

[Ixtab]

The Vietnamese victims of liquidations after Sihanouk's regime fell were mostly civilians. Defending yourself against an invading army is justified. Forced mass deportations of civilians also (under some circumstances). But what we are talking about here is mass murder of (mostly) civilians.No. They were squatters, and they were squatting by the millions. They squatted on Kampuchean territory, then annexed that territory to Vietnam. This would be like Mexicans "squatting" on the territory of Texas and annexing it to Mexico. Things were so chaotic in Kampuchea at the time that such things were possible.

Here is some information I have typed up from a book I have acquired, written by the Khmer Rouge:

From 1946 to 1954, under the cover of "revolutionary solidarity" against French colonialism, the Vietnamese sought for taking possession of Kampuchea's territory. Under the banner of revolution, the Vietnamese came into Kampuchea and settled up cells of the Indochinese Communist Party in order to grasp Kampuchea's people. They organized a party, an army and a State power. They used this expedient in order to try to take possession of Kampuchea. . . .

At that time, the Khmers who waged the struggle in Kampuchea had not an independent position. They were totally relying on the Vietnamese. They did not well understand for whom and for what they were making revolution. That is why the Vietnamese could easily enter into Kampuchea. They divided Kampuchea into zones: Easy zone, Southwest zone and Northwest zone. They could install there whoever they wanted to. They did everything at their place and acted at their will.

The Kampuchea's people are perfectly aware of the Vietnamese treacherous acts, subterfuges and hypocrisy. They have always seethed with a deep rancour.

Black Paper: Facts & Evidences of the Acts of Aggression and Annexation of Vietnam Against Kampuchea. Phnom Penh: Department of Press and Information of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Democratic Kampuchea, September 1978.

____

As Kampuchea's delegation always kept silence about the Paris negotiations, after two or three meetings the Vietnamese asked for its opinion. The Communist Party of Kampuchea's delegation put back the question in return: "Whom to negotiate with? Would we have to negotiate with the Lon Nol clique?" But the latter was already dying. . . . "Would we have to negotiate with the US?" Kampuchea's revolution had not to negotiate with the aggressors of Kampuchea. . . . Besides, the Communist Party of Kampuchea had nobody to carry out negotiations.

The Vietnamese replied: In our opinion Kampuchea's comrades must negotiate. If Kampuchea's comrades have no cadred to carry out negotiations with the US, we can do it in their place.

The Vietnamese impudence is boundless!

In October 1972, Vietnamese pressures became more imperious.

In fact, the US and Vietnamese had already put the broad outline of the draft of Paris Agreements into shape. Pham Hung and Hay So asked to meet once again with the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Kampuchea. The talks lasted four days instead of the initially scheduled two days. During the talks the Vietnamese have shown their rare insolence and were in a towering rage. Both sides expressed once again their points of views and each side kept abaiding by its position. The Communist Party of Kampuchea yielded nothing under the vietnamese pressures. [1]

. . .

At the moment when he was about to go home, Pham Hung said he had been entrusted by the Vietnamese party to inform the Communist Party of Kampuchea that on the day of their meeting to finish off the text of the Agreements, Kissinger asked Le Duc Tho to inform the Kampuchea's side that if Kampuchea did not cease fire, the US strategic and tactical planes would destroy Kampuchea within 72 hours. This was an open threat uttered to the Communist Party of Kampuchea. . . .

When Comrade Secretary Pol Pot came back home, he received a letter from the Vietnamese party to South Vietnam. . . [which] only confirmed Kissinger's threats underlining that if Kampuchea did not cease fire, he would totally destroy Kampuchea's revolution within 72 hours. The Vietnamese asked the Communist Party of Kampuchea to more carefully consider the problem. Did Kissinger really talk like that? Probably. But anyway, the Vietnamese were involved in this affair. . . .

As it has been mentioned above, the Communist Party of Kampuchea did not know with whom to negotiate, for Lon Nol was already dying. As for the US, they were the aggressors. They had to stop the aggression? . . . Besides, a cease-fire would spread confusion in the determination of the people and the Revolutionary Army of Kampuchea in waging their struggle.

On the other hand, at the end of 1972, the political situation of the whole of Southeast Asia showed that it was in Kampuchea where the revolutionary situation was best. South vietnam was under the Thieu clique's control. It was the same in Laos which, except some regions, was controlled by the administration of the Vientaine. As for Kampuchea', the Kampuchea's revolution, on the whole, grasped the situation well in hands and controlled the country. If the map was coloured, black colour would be in every place, except in Kampuchea were red colour would dominate. The objective of the US imperialists was to take this red place and turn it into black colour. . . . If Kampuchea's revolution failed, Vietnam's revolution would also fail. It would be the same for the other revolutions in South East Asian countries. . . .

So, when the Vietnamese informed the US that they had failed in forcing Kampuchea to negotiate and cease-fire, the US were very mad and decided to send their B-52 to bomb Hanoi in December 1972, until the Vietnamese implored them to stop bombing and resume negotiations. [2]

. . .

Kampuchea has been totally and definitely liberated on April 17, 1975. South Vietnam has been liberated on April 30, 1975. The Vietnamese had to leave Kampuchea and go back home. The Communist Party of Kampuchea requested the Vietnamese to withdraw before the end of May 1975, and at the lastest, at the end of June, 1975. But in fact, only one party of Vietnamese withdraw from Kampuchea. . . .

It was in Ratanakiri province where they were most numerous to remain in Kampuchea's territory. There were more than 1,000 scattered here and there in many places by groups of ten to one hundred. . . . Kampuchea's regional forces requested them to withdraw. The Vietnamese replied that the territories located North of Andaung Meas and Voeunsay were Vietnamese territories. . . . In Mondulkiri province, the Vietnamese troops also refused to withdraw. They finally withdrew only under the threat of the regional Secretary to drive them out by force.

At Snuol (Kratie province) the Vietnamese accepted to withdraw for they were aware of the measures taken in Ratanakiri and Mondulkiri provinces. [3]


**************************


1. Black Paper: Facts & Evidences of the Acts of Aggression and Annexation of Vietnam Against Kampuchea, pp. 72-74. Phnom Penh: Department of Press and Information of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Democratic Kampuchea, September 1978 (English as in original).

2. Ibid., pp. 74-46.

3. Ibid., pp. 78.

Do you think Native Americans were justified in attacking White settlers?No, because the Native Americans are an inferior race. I do not oppose colonising their territory any more than I would oppose a man building his home on territory previously inhabited by deer.

[Ixtab]

Here is another article which may be of interest to you:
http://www.panix.com/~lnp3//archives/July99/propaganda_about_pol_pot.htm

[Helios Panoptes]

No why on earth would they do that?!?!?!

Denying the facts will not make them less true. That China is doing this is common knowledge, written about in all mainstream newspapers.

You base the destruction on the family at least partly on a 3,000 year old example?

What sort of response is this? You asked for an example of the state being actively involved with ethical education. One was provided.

[tempus fugit]

I am not denying anything.........of course China is becoming more Capitalistic....Socialism didn't work, according to all mainstream newspapers.

[jcs]

What sort of response is this? You asked for an example of the state being actively involved with ethical education. One was provided.
That reminds me: confucianism is one of the best models for state and family relationships.
How is Confucianism viewed presently in China?

[Helios Panoptes]

I am not denying anything.........of course China is becoming more Capitalistic....Socialism didn't work, according to all mainstream newspapers.

It seemed as though you were. He pointed out that China was privatizing a portion of its industry and you responded with "No" followed by an expression of incredulity. Anyone who reads that response will reach the same conclusion as I did.

A small degree of privatization in a state does not render it "non-socialist." That is a ridiculous assertion. China lacks the natural resources to be purely socialist without a socialist alliance, so it must be flexible. The state remains in command.

[Ixtab]

I am not denying anything.........of course China is becoming more Capitalistic.As I said before, if China is capitalist because of privitisation, then Bismarck's Germany was Socialist because of state planning.

"The strategic centrality of state-owned industry," write Workers Vanguard. "The private . . . sector consists for the most part of factories producing light manufactures by labor-intensive methods. Heavy industry, the high-tech sectors, modern armaments production are overwhelmingly concentrated in state-owned enterprises. It is these enterprises that have enabled China to put a man in space. Far more importantly, it is state-owned industry that has enabled China to build an arsenal of nuclear weapons . . ."

At its core, the Chinese economy is both planned and collectively owned. The major industries are all owned by the State, the financial system, the exchange rate and the like are all controlled by the State. It is only that core of China's economy, not the private sector, that has allowed China to drive itself through the economic instability that has ruined every capitalist state in the region.

Yet another example this is, then, of the superiority of the Socialist system.

[tempus fugit]

It seemed as though you were. He pointed out that China was privatizing a portion of its industry and you responded with "No" followed by an expression of incredulity. Anyone who reads that response will reach the same conclusion as I did.

The incredulity is sarcastic, based on that the whole point is that China is moving away from Socialism and toward Capitalism.....China is bad evidence that Socialism has worked.

A small degree of privatization in a state does not render it "non-socialist." That is a ridiculous assertion. China lacks the natural resources to be purely socialist without a socialist alliance, so it must be flexible. The state remains in command.

China lacks natural resources?!?!? You haven't been there, apparently. I think you are referring to Japan.

More importantly, that China is becoming more capitalist very much renders it non-socialist. Sure, if you understand the Asian mindset, it's not going to happen overnight, as Russia attempted, but going from 0% to 20% capitalist in 20 years is highly highly significant. And of course clearly it is continuing to go in that direction.

Again, IMO China is bad evidence that Socialism has worked.

[Ixtab]

China lacks natural resources?!?!?It lacks plenty of raw materials. The only countries in the world that can be totally self-sufficient are Russia, the US, and Brazil.

More importantly, that China is becoming more capitalist very much renders it non-socialist.Where a country is "heading" does not somehow retroactively change the property relations which exist now. The country is almost entirely Socialist.

Again, IMO China is bad evidence that Socialism has worked.Why?

[Faustian Dreams]

"Political reforms can only establish sanctions to alter external behavior. Because they cannot penetrate the heart, they never really create new value systems among citizenry. Consequently, they are usually superficial and short-lived."

...

"Thus, the architectural maxim 'Form follows function' 'has a religious antecedent: 'Function follows value.' Values and priorities determine functions (i.e., what people do), and functions give rise to specific forms."

-George E. Mendenhall, "Ancient Israel's Faith and History"

"Function follows value

I have yet to encounter evidence of any political system that had considered human nature, let alone the laws of Nature, when drafting its foundational doctrines. Pertaining to the aforementioned quotes, this is why every political ideology to date has failed. There is no basis which would lead anyone in tune with the fact that only that which is eternal is true to believe otherwise. (Which, taking example from basic logical arguments, shows that a single inconsistency in a form leads the entire structure to its demise--limiting our scope to the question of the many instances of failure in Socialist experiments, this suggests that the flaw is not in the exception, but rather the rule. There is an appeal to order; and a weak brick at the extreme limits of a structure aren't what lead to folly, but rather, it is a weakness in its foundation.)

We can permit a liberal amount of relativity to Mendenhall's claim of a "short-lived" political entity; most empires will not experience more than two centuries of stasis and order proper (as if this is even possible) before undergoing fundamental changes. This frequency of turnover increases as we approach the Modern Era. (One could read this as: Humanity is reaching the limits of desperation, frantically putting to test many models for government--but to no avail!)

The family is not destroyed. Humanity will shake itself like a beast violently shaking its sinewy body to rid itself of an undesired tactile sensation. It is only beginning to approach its threshold, as more of human nature is compromised for something as base as "capital" or "economy." Then only through a long-withheld dialogue, a forum--a conversation!--will we be able to sit down and discuss our course of action for the future. To think that people have changed so radically in the core of their being is utter obstinacy; we are at all times hopelessly linked to the past. Why else would we still be able to identify with the exemplary philosophical doctrines scattered throughout the past three or four millenia?

So: Human nature hasn't changed, but that by no means implies that it is universal. Each class has its own function, which, as Mendenhall would say, is a result of its differing value systems. And, as modern politics do not care to judge so sensitively and apply a broad brush to painting a picture of an ideal for humankind to adhere to. An individual with an IQ of 75 serves no purpose as their value system is quite possibly nonexistent. Likewise, a person with an IQ of 110 will not fare so well in making weighty judgments that are best left for those with an IQ of 140. (It is a shame that wisdom is no longer our currency for investing respect in one another, that quantitative means have upset the mysticism of past eras--I attribute this to science, a skepticism and a discipline which I otherwise love dearly.)

How does this apply to Socialism? Not everyone will fail at upholding a nuclear family; not everyone was meant for democracy. Simply: Not Everyone. Mathematically, then (Economics is applied mathematics, no?), it is coming up with an equation which falls short of acknowledging and conforming it the much finer and more extravagant folds of what is portrayed.

What can satisfy such a request?

Better understanding of your fellow men.