Question for strident capitalists...

[cosmictotem]

The problem with "every one gets the same reward" is that very few will have university level "prepared minds." Other societies, which give greater rewards to their members who spend decades preparing their minds, will win the struggle for the access to necessary, but limited raw materials* and advance the state of knowledge more than your system society will, but we'll beat them in any burger flipping contest

It's starting to become clear to me that we are not talking about any real effects of one systems or another but people's reactions to different systems based on their personal preferences. Some people are just going to want a moneyless cooperative system and some people won't. And each will be more comfortable and do best within the system they prefer. If you're not happy in one system, you don't need to be there.

 

[Billy T]

It's starting to become clear to me that we are not talking about any real effects of one systems or another but people's reactions to different systems based on their personal preferences. Some people are just going to want a moneyless cooperative system and some people won't. And each will be more comfortable and do best within the system they prefer. If you're not happy in one system, you don't need to be there.

Finally a reasonable post - No longer pushing the postulate that society's problems are caused by the existence of money and would not exist, if money were abolished. I.e. if all worked for the benefit of all and shared equally in what they could create.

This is not a new idea. It has been tried at least a 1000 times, all ended in collapse, but perhaps 20 religious based ones were transformed to use money, the efficient means for letting people choose what they wanted to gain as a result of their labors, instead of having some governing body tell them what was needed for the health and happiness and what they need to produce for communal sharing. (The work people freely chose to do, does not naturally produce those goods and services needed.)

So many of these societies assigned the jobs, often with periodic rotation to be fair, as no one wanted to clean out the out house when it became full, etc. The larger, money using societies, use greater pay or the need to eat (when person lacks skill to do more pleasant job) to assure all needed work gets done.

As John Smith of Jamestown said to the elite, who did not think it their job to do manual labor:
"Ok, but those who don't work, don't eat." (They did not have money, but this worked too for few years, in their "equal sharing" society, until it collapsed.)

Here from Forbes is a brief review, that ends by noting the three main reasons why all these utopian "equal sharing" societies died or a few transformed to integrate back into the larger society with the use of money:

Mayflower pilgrims came to America to escape the persecution they encountered in Europe. A more obscure fact was that the Plymouth Colony was originally organized as a communal society, with an equal sharing of the fruits of everyone’s labor. Their governor, William Bradford, documented how this degenerated over the next two years into “injustice,” “indignity” and “a kind of slavery.” Productivity was shot, and the community starved. Bradford wisely placed the blame not on the flaws of his people, but on the system their society had chosen. They abandoned communal ownership and, lo and behold, the fields sprouted with life. ... {I. e. corn became abundant, etc.}
Hundreds of utopian experiments followed Plymouth–religious and secular, communist and individualistic, radical and moderate. But all had to make impossible sacrifices in the service of their ideals. … Many religious societies declined or disbanded after the loss of their founder. Others, such as the Perfectionists of Oneida who practiced group marriage, or the entrepreneurial Inspirationists at Amana, eventually gave up communal living, spun off their commercial interests and began assimilating into the surrounding communities.

I quote Santa Anna now:
"Those who can not remember history, are condemned to repeat it." Cosmictotem is trying to prove him correct.

Secular societies fared even worse, many of them repeating the lessons of Plymouth. Josiah Warren, a member of the celebrated New Harmony commune that collapsed under collectivist strains, went on to found societies based on a decidedly more individualistic premise, including utopia in Ohio and Modern Times on Long Island. While economically successful, boundaries between the true believers and their neighbors dissolved over time. Today, the hamlet of Brentwood, N.Y., where Modern Times used to be, looks like the rest of its Long Island surroundings–pleasant enough, but no utopia.
The long series of failed experiments yields some interesting lessons. The first is that internal power grabs are even more poisonous to utopian dreams than external threats. The gold standard of utopian leadership, the benevolent prince or philosopher king, is inherently unstable. The competition for succession invariably favors not the wise, but the ruthless.
A second lesson is that ideals are constraints, and the more constraints one tries to impose, the less viable the community will be. It’s hard enough for a private company–an organization focused exclusively on economic success–to survive intact for multiple generations. The best bet is to run utopia as a business, which is exactly what many communities concluded.
Finally, if you’re going to suppress your members’ worldly desires, you need a mechanism for self-selection. Several religious sects, like the Old Order Amish, have successfully stifled material interests over multiple generations. Their people are happy because they don’t require much stuff. But they know that everyone can’t be kept in the fold. The 10% of Amish who don’t stay allow the other 90% to maintain their culture.
While many people believe that utopias are doomed to failure because of human nature, it’s much more useful to approach utopia as the ultimate governance challenge. The U.S., itself, was a far more successful experiment because of that approach, expressed in James Madison’s view that, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.”

I bet even Cosmictotem thinks equal sharing of female's sexual services, like the Oneidans who practiced group marriage did, is not a good idea; but it would be interesting to see where he draws the line. For example, why should I wash my dirty underware when Joe has two clean pair? Or: My car is out of gas, so I'll use's Tom's. Or: I'm taking the group's TV to my room as I'll be watching some hot porn, the kids should not see. - What do you mean "my room"? It is to be shared.

 

[iceaura]

I bet even Cosmictotem thinks equal sharing of female's sexual services, like the Oneidans who practiced group marriage did, is not a good idea;

I'll bet you agree that is a better idea than allocating them by capitalist purchase in a market.

 

[Billy T]

I'll bet you agree that is a better idea than allocating them by capitalist purchase in a market.

Certainly, but probably not for the reason you believe. I don't condone selling what you don't own. Once women were owned by some man, but not now. The vestiges of this period are still evident in some marriage ceremonies, when the father "gives" his daughter to her husband to be.

Before my two daughters were to married. I had told them that if I was asked: "Who gives this child in marriage?" I would say: "No one owns her." Some how they made sure the question was not asked. I said, yes, I would be proud to walk down the isle with them; but that was all. I would not "give them away."

I'll also note that here, in "Catholic Brazil" prostitution is NOT illegal, but pimping is. If an attractive woman want to rent her body for sex, she can.

 

[billvon]

I'll bet you agree that is a better idea than allocating them by capitalist purchase in a market.

I think they should be allocated by whatever means the woman chooses.

 

[Billy T]

I think they should be allocated by whatever means the woman chooses.

Completely agree - as is legal in Brazil; however, knowingly passing VDs by prostitute to her customers is a crime

 

[billvon]

Completely agree - as is legal in Brazil; however, knowingly passing VDs by prostitute to her customers is a crime

I always found that it was interesting that in places in the US where prostitution is legal, there is almost zero incidence of any sort of VD, since prostitutes are perfectly free to require condom use and/or reject customers. In places where prostitution is illegal, the incidence of VD of all sorts is considerably higher.

 

[cosmictotem]

Billy T,

You've erroneously attributed the text quoted below to me:

"
cosmictotem said: ↑
Secular societies fared even worse, many of them repeating the lessons of Plymouth. Josiah Warren, a member of the celebrated New Harmony commune that collapsed under collectivist strains, went on to found societies based on a decidedly more individualistic premise, including utopia in Ohio and Modern Times on Long Island. While economically successful, boundaries between the true believers and their neighbors dissolved over time. Today, the hamlet of Brentwood, N.Y., where Modern Times used to be, looks like the rest of its Long Island surroundings–pleasant enough, but no utopia.
The long series of failed experiments yields some interesting lessons. The first is that internal power grabs are even more poisonous to utopian dreams than external threats. The gold standard of utopian leadership, the benevolent prince or philosopher king, is inherently unstable. The competition for succession invariably favors not the wise, but the ruthless.
A second lesson is that ideals are constraints, and the more constraints one tries to impose, the less viable the community will be. It’s hard enough for a private company–an organization focused exclusively on economic success–to survive intact for multiple generations. The best bet is to run utopia as a business, which is exactly what many communities concluded.
Finally, if you’re going to suppress your members’ worldly desires, you need a mechanism for self-selection. Several religious sects, like the Old Order Amish, have successfully stifled material interests over multiple generations. Their people are happy because they don’t require much stuff. But they know that everyone can’t be kept in the fold. The 10% of Amish who don’t stay allow the other 90% to maintain their culture.
While many people believe that utopias are doomed to failure because of human nature, it’s much more useful to approach utopia as the ultimate governance challenge. The U.S., itself, was a far more successful experiment because of that approach, expressed in James Madison’s view that, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.”

I bet even Cosmictotem thinks equal sharing of female's sexual services, like the Oneidans who practiced group marriage did, is not a good idea; but it would be interesting to see where he draws the line.

It seems to me your failure to fully understand my approach stems from not holding two ideas in your mind simultaneously. This is not an insult. I'm sure you could do it. You just don't want to.

There's a difference between biological needs and personal preferences and when critiquing my proposed approach it's important to constantly stay aware of the difference.

Although we like to tell ourselves recreational sex is a biological necessity, it's really just an activity preference. It is just one way humans think is required to intimately connect with another. Those connections can be made through other, less personally threatening and more inclusive, behaviors, we just choose to grant sex a dominant role in our activity preferences. And while there is an instinctual component to this choice, we could easily override it through the application of our intellect, if we ever wanted.

For example, why should I wash my dirty underware when Joe has two clean pair? Or: My car is out of gas, so I'll use's Tom's. Or: I'm taking the group's TV to my room as I'll be watching some hot porn, the kids should not see. - What do you mean "my room"? It is to be shared.

You also seem to be having trouble understanding that once someone is given possession of something, it's theirs to do with within the rules and laws of the state under my proposed approach. Someone can't take your car, your tv or your underwear unless they have your approval.

 

[Billy T]

Billy T, you've erroneously attributed the text ... to me:

true. sorry about that, but it should be clear to all that I was continuing my quote of Forbes article. (When my quotes are long and most parts can be see only by "Click to expand" I end the part that can be seen with a [/quote] and start new quote but messed up this time by copy of your, not forbes' link.

It seems to me your failure to fully understand my approach stems from not holding two ideas in your mind simultaneously. This is not an insult. I'm sure you could do it. You just don't want to.

I understand you well, and have several times re-stated what you advocate as: "There should be no money and all will work for the common good and receive the same value in standard, tradable items (a barter system) supplies packages." but even if I did not, the point of my post quoting Forbes was a history lesson for you. Summrized by:

Your ideas are not new. They have been tried more than 1000 times and all but about 20 failed. Those survivors dropped the collective approach to production (had their farm land divided and placed under one family's ownership and control) and adopted money to flexibly allocate the goods that were produced in accordance with the buyer's wishes (or let him save and invest; buy a new tractor, etc.). Or to repeat part of the Forbes article:

" Most schoolchildren know that the Mayflower pilgrims came to America to escape the persecution they encountered in Europe. A more obscure fact was that the Plymouth Colony was originally organized as a communal society, with an equal sharing of the fruits of everyone’s labor. At least, that was the plan.* Their governor, William Bradford, documented how this degenerated over the next two years into “injustice,” “indignity” and “a kind of slavery.” Productivity was shot, and the community starved. ... They abandoned communal ownership and, lo and behold, the fields sprouted with life.

As Bradford writes: “They had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn. … By this time harvest was come, and instead of famine, now God gave them plenty, and the faces of things were changed, to the rejoicing of the hearts of many.”

Hundreds of utopian experiments followed Plymouth–religious and secular, communist and individualistic, radical and moderate. But all had to make impossible sacrifices in the service of their ideals. ... Many religious societies declined or disbanded after the loss of their founder. ... Secular societies fared even worse, many of them repeating the lessons of Plymouth. Josiah Warren, a member of the celebrated New Harmony commune that collapsed under collectivist strains, went on to found societies based on a decidedly more individualistic premise, including utopia in Ohio and Modern Times on Long Island. While economically successful, boundaries between the true believers and their neighbors dissolved over time. Today, the hamlet of Brentwood, N.Y., where Modern Times used to be, looks like the rest of its Long Island surroundings–pleasant enough, but no utopia.

The long series of failed experiments yields some interesting lessons. The first is that internal power grabs are even more poisonous to utopian dreams than external threats. The gold standard of utopian leadership, the benevolent prince or philosopher king, is inherently unstable. "
- - - - - -
You have not even learned this first "lesson" but want to do what Santa Anna warn not to:
Don't learn from history, but repeat its failures.

It is of no import who understand your POV.
You like all the 1000 or so before you, ignore human nature, and the problems of how the "no money, communal" society can be governed.

* I made this text red as Forbes notes the most lethal thing to these idealistic societies is some how the goods produced must be distributed. - Your ideas are the foundation of a very corrupt, money-free, society. I.e. pretty girl who sleeps with male distributor gets the better cut of meat, the fresher vegetables, etc. and that is just the minor level of corruption that destroyed Plymouth Colony in less than two years. Nice thing about money, is that the beautify saint can't buy more with it than the ugly sinner can - it treats all equally. A goal you aspire to but produce un-fair corrupt quickly collapsing societies, if history if a guide.

 

[Billy T]

...You also seem to be having trouble understanding that once someone is given possession of something, it's theirs to do with within the rules and laws of the state under my proposed approach. Someone can't take your car, your tv or your underwear unless they have your approval.

I asked about what was private and what was communal to see where and how you would draw the division line. You have said nothing can be sold so when my eyes fail who gets my car and how is that decided, etc. without huge potential for corruption? You don't allow me to fairly auction it off.

 

[cosmictotem]

I asked about what was private and what was communal to see where and how you would draw the division line. You have said nothing can be sold so when my eyes fail who gets my car and how is that decided, etc. without huge potential for corruption? You don't allow me to fairly auction it off.

Why is money required to decide that? Maybe my mind just works differently but I find that a strange question.

 

[cosmictotem]

The long series of failed experiments yields some interesting lessons. The first is that internal power grabs are even more poisonous to utopian dreams than external threats. The gold standard of utopian leadership, the benevolent prince or philosopher king, is inherently unstable. "
- - - - - -
You have not even learned this first "lesson" but want to do what Santa Anna warn not to:
Don't learn from history, but repeat its failures.

It is of no import who understand your POV.
You like all the 1000 or so before you, ignore human nature, and the problems of how the "no money, communal" society can be governed.

* I made this text red as Forbes notes the most lethal thing to these idealistic societies is some how the goods produced must be distributed. - Your ideas are the foundation of a very corrupt, money-free, society. I.e. pretty girl who sleeps with male distributor gets the better cut of meat, the fresher vegetables, etc. and that is just the minor level of corruption that destroyed Plymouth Colony in less than two years. Nice thing about money, is that the beautify saint can't buy more with it than the ugly sinner can - it treats all equally. A goal you aspire to but produce un-fair corrupt quickly collapsing societies, if history if a guide.

Need I remind you that Capitalism is not devoid of corruption.

So the question we have to ask is what is the difference between Capitalism and those many other socialist inspired economies that people seem to naturally fall back into the corruption in Capitalism as opposed to the corruption of those other idealistic systems?

I think it could be this:

It's the difference between following our instincts vs. our consciously deliberated plans.

Individualism is closer to our primitive instincts and so it is easier to fall back into a system that reinforces those individualistic instincts.

Whereas a socialist system requires the contsant exercise of our deliberative conscious attention to a cooperative plan.

Capitalism, on the other hand, allows us to indulge our primitive and selfish competitive instincts.

Sorry if this post is a little poorly worded. I was being constantly interrupted while trying to respond.

 

[Billy T]

Need I remind you that Capitalism is not devoid of corruption.

That is true. For example, Brazil has had serious and continuous corruption for at least 350 years but unlike 1000 or so idealist societies, that abandon money and private owner ship of production facilities, especially agricultural land, it has not quickly collapsed. Most of those idealistic societies collapse in about three years or less!

Counting both China and USSR, collective farms have starved about 10 million people to death, in less than 40 years (under Mau & Stalin) ! Certainly, more than two million per year, but most men, other than you, seem to have learned from history. I. e. Neither Russia nor China want anything even resembling a collective farm now.

BTW, your post was not "poorly worded" but as it contradicts most of your earlier post (is correct, for a change) I can understand why you may think there is something wrong with it.

 

[cosmictotem]

Counting both China and USSR, collective farms have starved about 10 million people to death, in less than 40 years

Did collective farming do that or was that done by brutal dictators at the mercy of their own competitive instincts?

 

[Billy T]

Did collective farming do that or was that done by brutal dictators at the mercy of their own competitive instincts?

In both cases, the same "brutal dictators" were still in power for years after mass starvation DUE TO COLLECTIVE FARMS, had been replaced with private market based systems.

For example with market economy and private for profit management, Russia not only feeds its self, but is the world's third largest exporter of wheat - draw you own conclusions.

 

[cosmictotem]

In both cases, the same "brutal dictators" were still in power for years after mass starvation DUE TO COLLECTIVE FARMS, had been replaced with private market based systems.

For example with market economy and private for profit management, Russia not only feeds its self, but is the world's third largest exporter of wheat - draw you own conclusions.

I thought you said the reason for the failures of cooperative movements was human nature?

That doesn't seem to imply that cooperative farming had anything to do with it.

 

[Billy T]

I thought you said the reason for the failures of cooperative movements was human nature?

That doesn't seem to imply that cooperative farming had anything to do with it.

Because of human nature: At the collective farms, the seeds were planted with the least effort possible; the allotted fertilizer was distributed quickly over fertilizing some areas to use it up without as much walking or time on the tractor, leaving other areas with none; weeding was badly done, and certainly no bending over to pull out a stubborn root; pesticide were applied like the fertilizer was (quickly used up by over dosing some areas, and running out, saves effort); at harvest time, what was collected was not all (don't bend over too much, you'll get tired or even back pain); and when crop was being loaded into waiting trucks it was just thrown in, so bottom meter of soft items, like tomatoes, were smashed. - All this as their salary would not be reduced and they would not get so tired. I.e. because of that constant salary they did the least effort to "earn" it - human nature.

Contrast this with long hours of loving care city dwellers gave their tiny private plots their apartment complex had divided the land behind their apartment building into. Although these "urban gardens" were much less than 1% of the collective farms in size, they provided more than half of the vegetables eaten in Moscow!
Human nature again:
If you get more reward for more production, you work harder.
If you get the standard supply package, regardless of your job or how well you do it, YOU DO THE MINIMUM required.

 

[cosmictotem]

Because of human nature: At the collective farms, the seeds were planted with the least effort possible; the allotted fertilizer was distributed quickly over fertilizing some areas to use it up without as much walking or time on the tractor, leaving other areas with none; weeding was badly done, and certainly no bending over to pull out a stubborn root; pesticide were applied like the fertilizer was (quickly used up by over dosing some areas, and running out, saves effort); at harvest time, what was collected was not all (don't bend over too much, you'll get tired or even back pain); and when crop was being loaded into waiting trucks it was just thrown in, so bottom meter of soft items, like tomatoes, were smashed. - All this as their salary would not be reduced and they would not get so tired. I.e. because of that constant salary they did the least effort to "earn" it - human nature.

Alright, so the Ukrainians starved themselves because they weren't getting paid? Well, I'm afraid the whole edifice of your argument just collapsed. It seems the threat of starvation would be a greater motivator for increased production in both volume and quality than even the threat of going without a pay check.

If you get the standard supply package, regardless of your job or how well you do it, YOU DO THE MINIMUM required.

And here, you omit the fact that the Ukrainians weren't getting the standard supply package, or obviously one not calibrated to be enough... allowing for the possibility they were indeed providing the minimum of energy input. Hence, they starved. So again, your argument boils down to the Ukrainians starved themselves on purpose. It seems more likely the Ukrainians or the Soviet government miscalculated how much food they would need to produce for their population and Stalin's tyrannical psychology didn't help. This doesn't point to anything inherently wrong with cooperative farming.

You are claiming that the lesser threat of losing out on obtaining more resources for your comfort is more of a motivator for production than starving or losing access to all resources or enough resources required for one's survival. So the answer to the threat of not receiving the amount of resources you want is to cease or sabotage production so that you starve?

Your argument doesn't add up. Many people, under Capitalism no less, still work and put in their 8 hours a day, even though they are not happy with their pay check and feel it doesn't allow them to make ends meet. So to cite that as a reason for the collapse of production is disingenuous.

 

[Billy T]

Alright, so the Ukrainians starved themselves because they weren't getting paid? Well, I'm afraid the whole edifice of your argument just collapsed. ...

No it is strengthen by the historical facts, that you again are ignorant of:

To understand the origins of the famine, we have to go back to the October 1917 Revolution when the Bolsheviks, led by a ruthless clique of Marxist revolutionaries including Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin, seized power in the name of the workers and peasants of the Russian Empire to create a Marxist paradise, using terror, murder and repression. The Russian Empire was made of many peoples, including the Russians, Ukrainians, Kazakhs and Georgians, but the great majority of them, especially in the vast arable lands of Ukraine, southern Russia, the northern Caucasus, and Siberia, were peasants, who dreamed only of owning their own land and farming it. Initially, they were thrilled with the Revolution, which meant the breakup of the large landed estates into small parcels which they could farm.

Once they had seized their plots of land, they were no longer interested in esoteric absurdities such as Marx's stages in the creation of a classless society. The fact is they were essentially conservative and wanted to pass what little wealth they had to their children. This infuriated Lenin and the Bolsheviks, who believed that the peasantry, especially the ones who owned some land and a few cows, were a huge threat to a collectivist Soviet Russia. ... With his bloodthirsty loathing for all enemies of the Revolution, he said 'Let the peasants starve', and wrote ranting notes ordering the better-off peasants to be hanged in their thousands and their bodies displayed by the roadsides. Yet this was an emotional outburst and, ever the ruthless pragmatist, he realised the country was so poor and weak in the immediate aftermath of its revolutionary civil war that the peasants were vital to its survival. So instead, he embraced what he called a New Economic Policy, in effect a temporary retreat from Marxism, that allowed the peasants to grow crops and sell them for profit. It was always planned by Lenin and his fellow radicals that this New Economic Policy should be a stopgap measure which would soon be abandoned in the Marxist cause. But before this could happen, Lenin died in 1924 and Stalin defeated all his rivals for the Soviet leadership. Then, three years later, grain supplies dropped radically. ...

Stalin travelled across Russia to inspect supplies and ordered forcible seizures of grain from the peasantry. Thousands of young urban Communists were drafted into the countryside to help seize grain as Stalin determined that the old policies had failed. Backed by the young, tough Communists of his party, he devised what he called the Great Turn: he would seize the land, force the peasants into collective farms and sell the excess grain abroad to force through a Five Year Plan of furious industrialisation to make Soviet Russia a military super power. He expected the peasants to resist and decreed anyone who did so was a kulak - a better-off peasant who could afford to withhold grain - and who was now to be treated as a class enemy. By 1930, it was clear the collectivisation campaign was in difficulties. There was less grain than before it had been introduced, the peasants were still resisting and the Soviet Union seemed to be tottering. Stalin, along with his henchman Vyacheslav Molotov and others, wrote a ruthless memorandum ordering the 'destruction of the kulaks as a class'. They divided huge numbers of peasants into three categories. The first was to be eliminated immediately; the second to be imprisoned in camps; the third, consisting of 150,000 households - almost a million innocent people - was to be deported to wildernesses in Siberia or Asia. Stalin himself did not really understand how to identify a kulak or how to improve grain production, but this was beside the point.

What mattered was that sufficient numbers of peasants would be killed or deported for all resistance to his collectivisation programme to be smashed. In letters written by many Soviet leaders, including Stalin and Molotov, they repeatedly used the expression: 'We must break the back of the peasantry.' And they meant it. In 1930/1, millions of peasants were deported, mainly to Siberia. But 800,000 people rebelled in small uprisings, often murdering local commissars who tried to take their grain. So Stalin's top henchmen led armed expeditions of secret policemen to crush 'the wreckers', shooting thousands. The peasants replied by destroying their crops and slaughtering 26 million cattle and 15 million horses to stop the Bolsheviks (and the cities they came from) getting their food. Their mistake was to think they were dealing with ordinary politicians.

But the Bolsheviks were far more sinister than that: if many millions of peasants wished to fight to the death, then the Bolsheviks were not afraid of killing them. It was war - and the struggle was most vicious not only in the Ukraine but in the north Caucasus, the Volga, southern Russia and central Asia. The strain of the slaughter affected even the bull-nerved Stalin, who sensed opposition to these brutal policies by the more moderate Bolsheviks, including his wife Nadya. He knew Soviet power was suddenly precarious, yet Stalin kept selling the grain abroad while a shortage turned into a famine. More than a million peasants were deported to Siberia: hundreds of thousands were arrested or shot. Like a village shopkeeper doing his accounts, Stalin totted up the numbers of executed peasants and the tonnes of grains he had collected. By December 1931, famine was sweeping the Ukraine and north Caucasus. 'The peasants ate dogs, horses, rotten potatoes, the bark of trees, anything they could find,' wrote one witness Fedor Bleov. By summer 1932, Fred Beal, an American radical and rare outside witness, visited a village near Kharkov in Ukraine, where he found all the inhabitants dead in their houses or on the streets, except one insane woman. Rats feasted on the bodies. Beal found messages next to the bodies such as: 'My son, I couldn't wait. God be with you.'

One young communist, Lev Kopolev, wrote at the time of 'women and children with distended bellies turning blue, with vacant lifeless eyes. 'And corpses. Corpses in ragged sheepskin coats and cheap felt boots; corpses in peasant huts in the melting snow of Vologda [in Russia] and Kharkov [in Ukraine].' Cannibalism was rife and some women offered sexual favours in return for food. There are horrific eye-witness accounts of mothers eating their own children. In the Ukrainian city of Poltava, Andriy Melezhyk recalled that neighbours found a pot containing a boiled liver, heart and lungs in the home of one mother who had died. Under a barrel in the cellar they discovered a small hole in which a child's head, feet and hands were buried. It was the remains of the woman's little daughter, Vaska.

The correct lesson to be learned, is that Stalin's ruthless dedication to collective farming, turned the Ukraine from "the bread basket of Europe and especially Russia" into a land where millions forced onto non-productive collective farms, or killed, or starved because of the collectivization of formerly very production private farms.

You are like Stalin:
Dedicated to an idealistic, non-functional system, so you ignore the fact - that it has been tried more than 1000 times, in many different scales, and ALWAYS FAILS.

 

[billvon]

Alright, so the Ukrainians starved themselves because they weren't getting paid?

No, they worked as hard as they needed to to avoid getting in trouble (in your terms, to get their fair share of food from the depot.) That's why fertilizing was done poorly. That's why weeding was haphazard at best. That's why crops were crushed and destroyed during harvest.

If you are a weeder, you get just as much food if you end the day well-rested and happy as if you end the day with an aching back, raw fingers and filthy clothes. Why not choose to end the day well-rested and happy? You get just as much food in both cases. Let someone else get the rest of the weeds.

Well, I'm afraid the whole edifice of your argument just collapsed. It seems the threat of starvation would be a greater motivator for increased production in both volume and quality than even the threat of going without a pay check.

Why? You get the same amount of food no matter what you do. One person can't weed the entire farm, so even if you wanted to go all-out to save your farm, you could not compensate for the dozens of people who don't want to work. The end result is the same no matter what YOU do.

Your argument doesn't add up. Many people, under Capitalism no less, still work and put in their 8 hours a day, even though they are not happy with their pay check and feel it doesn't allow them to make ends meet.

And yet all those people are better off than those Ukranians - and they work 8 hours a day. A good argument for capitalism.