The only thing he told me is "this t-shirt implies a political affiliation that isn't mine; I won't sign it."
I had asked him to sign my t-shirt, that depicted him with a beret with a Gnu on it, in the style of Che Guevara
I had asked him to sign my t-shirt, that depicted him with a beret with a Gnu on it, in the style of Che Guevara
(Yes, I know about RMS' history too (yes, that history) and I'm not defending that at all - but so far, of what I've seen, he seems to be wanting to avoid being misinterpreted by others, which is something I deeply empathise with, such is life-on-the-spectrum)
One should listen to them.
One should also be aware of the massive selection bias in views you're going to hear.
I think that people leaving a country are more likely to dislike that country than those staying.
You could say that the survivors of the Titanic didn't want to drown, sure, but you're selecting for the people who survived. The people who all drowned might have wanted to!
I.e. there's a balance. People basically always migrating in one direction must tell you something other than "those exact people just wanted to".
> One should listen to them.
> One should also be aware of the massive selection bias in views you're going to hear.
And I presume that you feel the ones who died trying to escape would have a different opinion of communism than the ones who lived to produce your selection bias?
"The Democratic People's Republic of Murderistan is a human rights violating hellhole, so that's what you want whenever you say you support Democracy. There is no selection bias from people from there because they should know what Democracy is if anyone does".
I think the difference is that we have more than one example of masses of people fleeing to democracies, even if they have to do so illegally, while there are no examples of masses of people fleeing to communist countries.
It's pretty obvious what the non-armchair citizens of various governing styles prefer, and what they don't.
Absolutely. The dead tell no tales.
Anyway, you're being illogical. A flawed argument will remain just as flawed when it is used to reach a true conclusion as when it is used to reach a false conclusion.
If you want to prove me wrong, show that it is sensible to infer from the fact that an extremely selected-for sample has some property that the entire population has that same property - and do so without appealing to a bigger picture. Because if you were to claim that appealing to a bigger picture is necessary, you would be making the selfsame claim that I am making.
Under communism, China went from being "the sick man of Asia" to the most economically successful and politically powerful country in Asia, no?
It's the greatest single power on Earth other than the USA, no?
But perhaps under a capitalist regime China might have had even greater success?
Well, let us see:
How does one compare the stumbles of early Communist China to the consistent failure of capitalist India? Which path would you have preferred for your country?
I don't believe that's true, no. China does have a lot of natural resources, and a large population, and also it's true that any very authoritarian regime, fascist Italy under Mussolini being another good example, can do things like create good infrastructure, because it can have long-term bets. That is an accelerator for long-term economic growth. But the actual economic growth has come from China allowing capitalist economic systems to develop, where the people doing the work or risking the cash make decisions. Of course, Communism dies hard, and so if you say the wrong thing you can be "reminded" that the Party is all-powerful[0], but China has done well to allow individual people create value, evidenced by its economic growth.
Everything that has happened in China is possible only because of the victories of communism. From a non-existent school system (Mao managed to attend school because his father was the wealthiest in his village, but the schooling was nothing but rote memorisation of poems) to a well-educated population. From a nation controlled by war-lords to a nation controlled by the CCP. From a nation occupied by various foreign powers to a nation controlled by its own people, capable of controlling its borders. These were not the achievements of capitalism.
China had authoritarians before communism. Many countries has authoritarian leaders contemporaneous to Mao but achieved nothing. Mao's successes were not what "any" authoritarian could have achieved. It needed to be an authority with faith in the masses of its people, and an authority altruistic enough to put aside its own immediate interests for the good of the people. Fascism shares some of these qualities, but the fascists were expansionist, impatient, etc. Fascism lost, Mao won.
Well; fascism (or Nazism, maybe?) was socialistic ideas but on national boundaries rather than class boundaries. Hitler (mostly) wanted to kill non-Germans. Communist uprisings tend to kill their own citizens, and nonsensical edicts from hyper-powerful beaurocrats tend to starve same.
No - Mao isn't a prerequisite. A global system to latch on to is.
As for the others, these are modernization/consolidation of power which don't require Marxism to happen. Whether the KMT or someone else could have achieved these without a "Great Leap Forward" (30~45 million dead) is another question, but I think the answer is "probably".
Of course, communism is a system where the workers have control over their workplace, and by "the workers" I mean "random government bureaucrats that supposedly represent the workers", and by "have control" I mean "they have their choice of vote in the single-party election for the government that appoints said bureaucrats".
No you don't. It's not all starvation deaths. Mao deliberately - through the insane power Communism bestows on the state - told farmers what to farm and how to farm, and punshed harshly those who disobeyed. And because they obeyed, and only a child who still thinks their parents know everything would think the state (parent-surrogate to many Communists) knows more about farming than farmers, millions starved. Even worse in some ways (while it's stupid to trust the state with farming techniques, it was at least trying to make farming better) - the Soviet Union imposed harsh quotas on Ukraine, causing the death of 3.5-5m people in the Holodomor.
This is what you should expect when you give your "bureaucrats that supposedly represent the workers" all the power, trusting that they can do all the hard and expert work in allocating resources both extremely well, and without any human failings such as corruption or violence.
Markets aren't perfect at resource allocation, but they are very very good at it. Replacing the experts at it whose livelihoods depend on doing it very well, with bureaucrats who know nothing about it, and whose livelihoods are guaranteed either way, and who might get disappeared if they displease their superiors' whims, seems impossibly naive on the face of it.
This is a very strange comment. Where did I agree to that?
From 1850 to 1874 the Nian and Taiping rebellions caused 20-30 million deaths. Is this what you're referring to as capitalism?
To be fair, China always had great famines, at least twice each century. This changed only recently, which in fact is a good argument pro-revolution: after one last famine, it never happened again. The same cannot be said for other countries that were colonized or invaded by capitalist powers; and the famine and problems caused by them during XIX century in China were much worst than the famine after the revolution.
The Taiping Rebellion was a civil war between the Taiping (ethnic Hakka, Han subgroup) and Qing dynasty (ethnic Manchu). While yes British opium was a destabilizing factor, so was rampant Qing corruption, religious/ethnic zealotry, etc. China had constant wars for millennia, and this war coincided with the invention of modern guns and artillery while still using pre-modern tactics, which (like the American Civil War) made it especially deadly. Its disingenuous to pin an internal and ill-timed conflict on "capitalism".
Then there comes the persecution complex. The horror.
He is way too careful for this.
Stallman had to fight people comparing free software to communism, and left wing people didn’t help at all in that sense.
B) RMS is very well known as someone who is, amongst other things, not a communist.
Frankly I fail to see how this could be taken as anything other than a provocation. Why would you have a picture of RMS as Che and then ask him to sign it? The only other explanation I can think of is you're too stupid to not see A or B.
RMS was probably right not to sign it though. I also believe producing a t-shirt with RMS depicted as the Che is not quite right.
Otherwise it's mere faux-pas, at worst.
What's more, you don't necessarily know everything about a person. I would not know anything about RMS's political opinions if I had not read his website a bit, I would only know him for his stance on free software.
On the other (left) hand, I'd definitely buy an ironic t-shirt of ESR as Che labeled "Free Software Liberator" and ask ESR to sign it, just to piss him off and provoke him to threaten to shoot me, like he did to Bruce Perens.
The irony of Eric S Raymond threatening someone else for behaving "like that kind of disruptive asshole in public" is rich -- very rich.
ESR's Death Threat Email to Bruce Perens:
https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/1999/04/msg00623.html
Bruce Perens Dead:
https://geekz.co.uk/lovesraymond/cat/bruce-perens/page/10
Terrorismistic:
So... no.
Besides, it was in Europe. Us Europeans do not have the same epidermic reaction to communism that Americans have.
Worship of this mass murderer is repugnant:
“We don’t need proof to execute a man. We only need proof that it’s necessary to execute him.”
“We executed many people by firing squad without knowing if they were fully guilty. At times, the Revolution cannot stop to conduct much investigation.”
“My nostrils dilate while savoring the acrid odor of gunpowder and blood…I’d like to confess, Papa, at that moment I discovered that I really like killing.”
“We must eliminate all newspapers; we cannot make a revolution with free press.”
“We send to Guanahacabibes [i.e., Cuban labor camp] people who have committed crimes against revolutionary morals…it is hard labor…the working conditions are harsh…”
You're just making it worse and worse. I'm also European. I'm guessing you're Western European though? I'm also guessing your country wasn't under soviet occupation for 50 years? Eastern Europeans very much do have a bad allergic reaction to communism, just like Americans, and just like everyone else who came in contact with it. Che was at best a useful idiot.
To Westerner, they never saw communism in action, only propaganda.
Which means that kids can proudly wear their capitalistic-made Che Guevara t-shirt at school.
However, in Eastern Europe it's an absolute no, wearing such shirts is worse than the nazi symbols
because it shows support to extreme atrocities in front of people who were victim of them.
- a theoretical economic model that is opposed to capitalism
- the atrocious regimes of the 20th century calling themselves communism you are referring to that have vanishingly few things to do with the first.
Vanishingly few people in Western Europe support these atrocious regimes. And therefore, communism the way you are using it. What's more, there's not much propaganda for communism here (I believe there was propaganda in the past, though). The confusion is usually here and people mostly don't see communism with a good eye because of the confusion (or because they are knowledgeable and oppose the theory - which is a better reason to be against it). Now, it's true that we have weaker feelings about it than in the US (and, I guess, the parts of the words that suffered from the atrocious regimes).
(The usual response to this is that theoretical communism invariably leads to these atrocious regimes, but I believe we don't know this - invariably, it seems they've been set up by possibly sadist assholes with huge egos and thirsts for power, we haven't tried without - as well as we don't know if it would work. I don't have any further useful point to make in this discussion so I probably won't engage in it.)
I'm sorry I was not clear enough, but I'm afraid I won't be able to express myself better so I'll just leave it at that.
You are free to make this point if you want, just don't make it look like it comes from me because it doesn't.
I've learned about communism from two types of sources. Philosophy books and history books, and the takeaways are quite different.
It's a reasonable hypothesis, just not the only one.
This week I only saw white people in the streets. I could conclude all people walking in my city are white. But that's false.
But I'd say we don't have any example neither: regimes from your history books weren't "communism" we find in your philosophy books. You can see it if you read both carefully enough.
(and again, I'm not stating communism can work, because we don't know that).
But even if we assume both "communisms" are the same: you are saying "Communism has failed N times, therefore it will always fail". You don't know that (though I would admit it's quite solid evidence in this case)
We don't know. And I'm not arguing for or against communism here neither.
So would you agree with the statement that all attempts failed?
You see, you're mockingly presenting me as simply going "never happened therefore can't happen". I would say that you're the extreme opposite where you're going "what happened doesn't matter, we learned nothing from it".
You know, we can reason about the future past the data...? There's a reason why communism failed all attempts. That reason is something which apparently you're missing, but I'm using to support my prediction that it can't work.
Yes, to the extent there were none, really. And if we consider all the regimes calling themselves communism, yes, sure, failed in every possible ways too, of course.
> you're mockingly
No no no, I wouldn't dare making fun of you / mocking you. I have no interest doing so and I would not find this funny. I'm sorry I made you feel I'm mocking you, in any case that was not my intent.
> There's a reason why communism failed all attempts.
You didn't address the hypothesis I exposed in my first comment and that I will restate: any regime calling themselves "communism" were set up by huge assholes using the noble name to call their totalitarian views and misusing the concepts to make it look more legit. Maybe they even liked the idea but still wanted the power.
I feel like I won't convince you and that's fine.
On my side, I haven't discarded the hypothesis that communism can't actually work. We don't know either way.
Ok lets break it apart.
> any regime calling themselves "communism" were set up by huge assholes ( ... )
Agreed.
> ( ... ) using the noble name to call their totalitarian views.
Wrong. Research into the inner circle writing of Stalin show that he and the top people in the party believed themselves to be communists and doing the right thing for the ultimate goal of making the world communist. He wasn't just "using the noble name" (lol?). He behaved like a communist even when no one was looking as per the decisions he made even after attaining absolute power. I'd suggest you read Steven Kotkin's book "Stalin". Of course, if you dispute the expert take I'd have to ask for your credentials.
EDIT: bit frustrating to talk to someone whose starting point is "it's unknown if X" when X has been known for a long time. It's like, do your homework before coming in here. I'm out, good luck.
Taking a shortcut. I meant using a name that possibly had good reputation back then.
For the rest, I'm no expert on the topic, you seem to know better than me, continuing to argue would be pointless.
edit: (to answer your edit) Okay, but then why didn't you counter me right away with solid arguments if you had them from the start? Happy to learn from an actual expert! Like, you could have just written: "Actually, there's strong evidence that both are the same. Here are some references: ..."
I don't agree with it, but you've coined a first rate phrase there.
Though they failed in that regard too I think.
As a Hungarian, this is just not true. The Western view of communism has been imported and the more time goes on, the more the younger generations base their views on what's cool in the West vs what their old and uncool grandparents blabber on about.
With the Internet and media and travel options and exchange semesters etc. the Western European attitude is diffusing into the east as well. It was already cool to wear Che t shirts 20 years ago in Budapest. Though of course Budapest has always been a West oriented cosmopolitan liberal city, so copying the west in this is not so surprising.
1956 is also interesting as it became relevant politically again with the war in Ukraine. And it is my impression that many people in Hungary look at this not as something happening in a bordering country but as if trying to see it through Western European/North American eyes. A bit like vampire Transylvania, which might as well be a totally different entity than Erdély. So is "Ukraine whose flag the celebs put on their profile pics" a separate entity from Ukraine, east from Nyíregyháza and Mátészalka, where the cheap cigarettes come from etc. A very different set of connotations.
Similarly, the communism that's cool is mentally compartmentalized away from historic reality like 1956, Rákosi, Kádár etc.
Hate of communism was just never as rabid 'round here. In 1993 we had one of the mainstream pop songwriters write a love song to it (Rouge) and it had the Red Army Choir singing there and sold a million discs on this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rouge_(Fredericks_Goldman_Jo....
We still have 'revolutionary' communist (troskists, and other variations) like Lutte Ouvrière, la Ligue Communiste Révolutionnaire at each presidential election, gathering between 3 and 6% of votes...
Europe is diverse...
Still, around 20 years ago when I was a teen, some edgy kids did wear Che and Marx t-shirts and it was considered cool in some circles. I'd say it is an imitation of the West. As paradoxical as it sounds, since communism is seen as edgy and cool in Western Europe, the kids in Eastern Europe who want to seem in-the-know and up-to-date had to copy it. But it was indirect in this way, it didn't grow out of the Eastern European experience.
It is a continuation of a historic West-imitation that's as old as taking on Roman Catholicism or adopting the Renaissance in Matthias Corvinus' court.
Hungarians in the 80s didn't long for some different philosophical organization of society. They wanted the cool Western things, good home appliances, higher salaries, vacations abroad, jeans, shoes, porn magazines, Western pop rock punk music, Coca Cola, McDonald's etc.
So shortly after the change of system in 1989 edgier kids also started to adopt the teen rebel fashion including Che. Just like there were a few goths and emo kids in every class later on. And today it's kpop and whatever is trending on tiktok.
Western Kids larp communism so eastern kids larp the larp. Its not unlike importing Buddhism and mindfulness from California. People adopt it because it is cool in the West and adopt the western interpretation of it.
Imagine if a hip Indian tech worker in Bangalore adopts Californian Buddhism. It would not be because of the local history of Buddhism, but the coolness factor put on it by Silicon Valley. It's like when pizza was backimported to all of Italy, after it got popular in America, even though it was a much more local thing in a small part of Italy before.
Not saying it was good or anything, it was a terribly autocratic regime without self-determination and liberty, and i'm sure 99% are better without it, whatever their feelings are. I'm just saying that the sentiments about it are more complex than you seem to say. Anecdata is only worth that much, and in topics so close to personal feelings, it's worth even less. And you seems to essentialize your opponents too much.
They would had GLADLY spit on the graves of every Communist they came across. Killed so many members of my family.
What could be more capitalist than remixing a photo of a communist revolutionary and selling it for profit? I see them as ironic, not endorsing, especially in their remixed state.
I guess this just underlines the fact RMS shouldn't have signed the t-shirt - it's just a graphic, so you could make out it means anything.
Regardless of your views on 'communism' (and I say that as someone who will quickly detest any of those governments at that time in history), they faught against overtly fascist regimes that trampled on all personal freedoms and routinely rounded up dissidents to be summarily executed. RMS 'not endorsing' fighting for personal freedom is an endorsement of the status quo of that era, where governments like Pinochets would literally kidnap dissidents, sedate them, throw them into the cargo holds of 747s and dump them out over the ocean from tens of thousands of feet in the air.