So a mate of Stalin, lover of firing squads and raper of the economy provides special "Leftie" rights; being an oxygen thief should be a crime.

No doubt Dorothea feels all superior but such superiority leads to such as the thousands of drownings in the Indian Ocean and a collapse in Venezuela.

Dorothea, Castro amassed a fortune, had yachts and lots of lovely girl friends. He and his commo mates exploited everyone else in Cuban society and held them in poverty by crude violence.
However as you lecture in law why would that concern you? Truth, justice, do not make me laugh lawyers are the very epitome of greed, corruption and dishonesty and no one trusts you.

Ye gods! I didn’t think such distorted views of the world still existed. “The most prominent right in socialism is freedom from economic exploitation”! Like, “when are they going to do something for the workers?” as we used to chant at school 60 years ago. Well, they did do something. They tried socialism and communism, where everything was done ‘for the workers’. But then everything led to pretty much nothing. The workers finished up worse off. One could be charitable and say that socialism once looked attractive in principle and perhaps should be tried out to see if it might work. Been there, done that – it doesn’t. The empirical evidence is unequivocal. Put in the terms of Ms Anthony’s world view, workers are far better off when they do get ‘exploited’ economically. How many experiments need to be conducted to convince the likes of Ms Anthony? As for Cuba’s suppression of its people by a communist dictator, it’s the pattern everywhere and the reasons are obvious. A merciless iron fist is the only way to control a population deprived of the benefits of modern life by enforcement of a system based on pure economic ignorance.

It is unsurprising that human rights will reflect the values of those who pronounce them since they are conjured out of thin air. They are a kind of wishful thinking promoted by societies that are well off. Thus we may pronounce them all we like but they will never cut ice in societies at the lower end of the economic scale.

Why anybody would want to discuss a rotten mongrel like Castro is beyond me. He was a vicious animal.

Quote: The most prominent right in socialism is freedom from economic exploitation.

Does that include exploitation by the ruling class, or are socialist rulers by definition exempt from being categorized as exploiters? I heard the Castros lived quite well, with private house and resorts all over the island.

Didn't a guy named Orwell write a book about this? Consider Castro as napoleon and Ms Anthony as squealer, and the article makes sense.

The lady's page at UNSW:

http://www.law.unsw.edu.au/profile/dorothea-anthony

Would somebody kindly explain to me what exactly is the "fundamental human rights principle of indivisibility"?

Whatever it is, it is much more important than not being put in a concentration camp, a dirty prison or in front of a firing squad for having an non-authorized opinion.

Maybe her supervisors at the University can tell us?

One wonders what sort of society Cuba would have been able to produce, without the decades of sanctions imposed by the US? Something too successful to be allowed to evolve (without continual running interference) perhaps?

Nut job Castro replaced a clinically corrupt extreme right wing, Marco style government/dictatorship, who presided over clinically poor masses and a tiny cabal of comparatively rich folks!

I say nut job, given only a narcissistic nut job would have initiated the missile crisis and the following decades of economic sanctions!

None of which impacted negatively on Castro, who had many South American friends!

Even so none of its citizens are deprived of among other things affordable health care/dental care? Both of which seemed to have promoted health tourism?

Of course socialism that close to home couldn't be allowed to succeed that close to the US border!

Thus we had the crippling economic sanctions imposed by the US, which cannot compete, even so,with Cuban universal health, on either costs or excellent best practice?

What they need now is state owned thorium based nuclear energy. Which would power up their domestic economy and allow them to irrigate with desalinated water or convert seawater into diesel and or methanol to run their converted cars and trains or electrify them?

Cheap energy, reliable water, food self sufficiency and low cost labor would enable a flourishing footwear and textile industry to complement American industrial revival?

I don't hold out a lot of hope for American style capitalism to replace what Cuba has now!

Given there are places in the states hardly any better off!

Ultimately the proof is in the pudding and apples for apples comparisons? Not what some right wing ideologue says it is!

I think cooperative capitalism is the way forward for an economically free Cuba?
Alan B.

I do hope for the world's sake and for those of us who worked hard for our PhDs that your supervisor and examiner knock out your circular, sentimental writings from your thesis. Read the other comments and consider them. Then re read your words and think. You might learn something about why you are doing a thesis and remove your naive partisan views from future work

"Cuba is a classic example of a country targeted for its human rights record. Western governments and human rights groups have long charged Cuba with breaching basic liberties. Whether or not evidence can be furnished of any breach is immaterial. The United States used the charges to justify the CIA-sponsored Bay of Pigs invasion of 1961, and to justify imposing decades of harsh economic blockades."

Dorothea, I think some reading of history is required. The Castro Governement's human rights record had absolutely nothing to do with the Bay of Pigs invasion. Particularly given the original planning was done in early 1960.

Things that did matter were:

Castro's nationalization of US company assets in Cuba
Castro's growing ties with the Soviet Union

"Yet there is a problem with making a human rights assessment of the Cuban situation and Castro's legacy. The problem is that the present language of human rights cannot adequately capture the types of rights that exist in the type of society that Cuba represents, namely, a socialist society."

This is a statement that I find to be unparalleled bilge. Why should "socialist" societies be allowed to construct a different set of human rights?

Dorothea,
Thousands of people ( at one time an average of 2000 per year) drowned trying to get out of Cuba- not into it.

The Iron Curtain was built be communists to stop people getting out of Communist countries.

Were all those fleeing people stupid ?

Surely you can see the fundamental problem with communism? It centres all power- judicial, legislative, executive and economic at one point.

Surely the 20th century must have taught you the truth of the old adage:- All power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Grow up

Regards from an old man whose eyes are open.

The other posters have expressed their outraged and rightly so. The communist regime in Cuba replaced one set of horrors with another that was far worse - education and health care not withstanding. Everyone wanted to get out to the US, where the capitalist exploitation so hated by Ms Anthony was rife.

My main concern is that Ms Anthony can hold views of the extreme, irrational left wing, so obviously absent of intellectual rigour and be a PhD candidate in law for a prestigious university. She is entitled to her views but do I, as a taxpayer, have to pay for her training?

I know people who have been to Cuba and the people are very poor and oppressed. The tax police come around and if you cannot justify the ownership of simple luxuries you are in big trouble.
The West is going the way of Cuba and China.

The problem is that commentators in this thread view liberal rights as inviolable - but they seem to think social rights are 'inconsequential'. IN the West we should also be subject to criticism for common double standards ; and neglect of social rights.

BUT It always was a mistake for self-avowed Communists to separate liberal rights from economic rights - as began under Lenin - and as was taken to shocking lengths under Stalin. As left-social-democratic (Marxist) critics of Lenin argued - it was a strategy which was fatal for social democratic Marxism... Suddenly all the liberal and democratic rights that Marxists had fought for for decades were to be 'dispensed with', and the rights we on the Left had demanded for ourselves - would be denied to those who thought differently. Including other Leftists. This discredited us in the eyes of millions for decades.

Yes there were mitigating circumstances in Russia (and indeed in Cuba). Foreign intervention, destabilisation and war. Assassination attempts also. That warranted some short term compromise. But as Rosa Luxemburg argued - suppressing democracy and liberal rights was BAD FOR COMMUNISM. (that is communism as imagined by Marx, and not as pursued under Lenin and Trotsky - which actually was 'the dictatorship of the proletariat' corrupted into 'the dictatorship of the Party')

Remember 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat' for MARX 'was a means of applying democracy' ; ie: in the form of the self-government of the working class... Which yes did mean overcoming resistance to the revolution - But through democratic practices and structures.

This may challenge some peoples' preconceptions. But a bit of research should confirm the truth of the matter.

though yes Marx also consider at times Terror may be necessary - as with the French revolution - but Rosa Luxemburg still disagreed with Lenin's tactics very strongly - as did many other democratic communists and Marxist social democrats.

... but Rosa Luxemburg (living in the West) still disagreed with Lenin's tactics very strongly - as did many other democratic communists (living in the West) and Marxist social democrats (also living in the Western non-communist societies).

I almost didn't bother to read this, thinking it would be another brutal-tyrant-evil-communism-poverty-under-socialism rant. I'm glad that curiosity got the better of me. Good analysis. Well done.

Cuba has been operating under a state of siege for 60 years - from economic, diplomatic and violent terrorism, driven by Washington, the CIA and the Cuban right-wing exile community.

Much of Cuba's poverty and repression is the direct and indirect result of this US terrorism. Any government faced with such a protracted assault would understandably crack down on dissent. How jolly to then hold it up to the world as yet another example of socialism equals slavery.

The irony in all this is that Castro was not a communist at heart. But he needed the communists to succeed in overthrowing the corrupt US puppet Batista - whose main priority was to maintain Cuba as a giant casino for rich Americans.

You care about Cuban poverty and repression? Have a look at poverty and repression under Batista. At least, the 11 million Cuban population has not had to pay a cent for medical expenses in 60 years, or for education. Something that is out of reach for the 43 million Americans living below the poverty line. Something that shaves at least a third off the salaries earned by middle class Americans and most Western citizens.

Tristan Ewins

The problem with your comments is that the original Marx vision was simply unworkable, a dream by someone who could not understand the capitalist system, misread all the social trends of his time and was unaware of basic human nature. He bequeathed a new way at looking at the world, including new terminology, but his philosophy has been abandoned almost everywhere it has been tried and no matter what form it has been tried. The only time the prols get a say is in capitalist democracies. Time to move on.

Marx was right a lot of the time.

Right on the business cycle ; on alienation ; on the development of a class struggle ; on the tendency towards monopolism ; on exploitation, the existence of surplus value ; commodity fetishism ; the pressures on the middle class...

Where he was wrong: labour theory of value neglected the subjective factor - though the MECHANISM of surplus value remains ; capitalism adapted again and again ; workers did not 'essentially' embrace communism - many turned to fascism given unfavourable circumstances ; the market remained necessary for flexible determination of personal needs structures. The means of social control became more and more complex with the rise of information and communications technology. Capitalism also increased its survivability through brining women into the workforce ; through the 'total mobilisation' of WWI ; through the extension of the world market to its furthermost limits...

Things to watch for: My much further can the global market go? Environmental constraints ; global division of labour being questioned and resisted - where will that leave us? Will class struggle re-emerge if living standards fall?

Also will the current and future waves of communications technology actually challenge social control by doing away with 'one way information flows'?

Also perhaps Marx's final aim of communism is possible because of flaws of human nature. But you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

sorry typo - should have read "total mobilisation of WWII" ;

Tristan - sorry but most of the stuff you attribute to Marx was in fact recognised long before his time. One at least by Adam Smith (it starts with m). The rest is, as I said, new ways of looking at interactions which have some use in analysis.

The rest is just nonsense which, to judge from you post, has clouded your thinking. To take just one example of many "one-way information flows". Tristan I'm a journalist who was retrenched some months ago because no-one advertises in conventional media anymore.

But even in the hey day of that conventional media, which you fondly image to be controlled by mysterious right-wing forces, you still had the Green-Left Weekly, letters sections (I was a letters editor for some years and I was not controlled by right wing forces), academic journals of varying repute and wacky radio stations broadcasting any nonsense. Now its a free for all. If you want to see actual one-way information flows go to China or Russia.

Tristan for heaven sake stop studying Marx while you still have some critical faculties left, drop the long obsolete nonsense about class struggle, and look about you. Leave it with you.

The most basic of human rights in any society are the right to food, shelter and basic medical assistance and there are several "democratic" societies that don't freely provide for these things. Homeless people still freeze to death during Winter within miles of the White House.

Popular revolutions are typically the result of a backlash against general oppression and nothing much has been said about how life was for Cubans under the previous Batista regime.

The fact that Cuba survived despite extreme economic sanctions for decades (also condemned as inhumane by the UN) and remained independent of US doctrine is one of their greatest achievements and America's greatest political embarrassment.

Likewise Castro's response to US demands to free citizens led him to empty his prisons and asylums and send the inmates to Florida where some went on to create a lot of the crime gangs that persist today.

Locally, it's also interesting to hear about how successful the Cuban international indigenous literacy programme has been for residents of Wilcannia.

Nevertheless the myths about Castro will continue.

For example -
JBowyer, please tell us more about Castro's money, yachts and girlfriends.
McCackie - how was Castro a "mate of Stalin" when he publicly despised the Russians for being Stalinist traitors and not true Marxists?
Agronomist - Some clarification. Cuba was reluctantly driven into partnership with the Russians when Castro tried to buy weapons for his army after the Bay of Pigs. The prominent international arms dealer at the time was the UK and the USA instructed the UK not to deal with Castro because "he will have to go to the Russians and that would automatically make him our official enemy".

“The most prominent right in socialism is freedom from economic exploitation”

Does Dorothea Anthony really believe Cuba had that under Fidel Castro?

In reporting his legacy, the SMH included a report from someone whose father's business had (along with all other private businesses) been seized by the Cuban government on Fidel Castro's orders. That's something that wouldn't've happened if they had freedom from economic exploitation.

That article went on to say that subsequently his father applied to leave Cuba... and was forced him to work in the cane fields because the state took the attitude that anyone who wants to leave must be an enemy. Again that wouldn't've happened if they had freedom from economic exploitation. Eventually Cuba let him and his family leave, but they weren't allowed to take any valuables with them. More economic exploitation!

So was this article written because Dorothy Anthony...
a) Was ignorant of all that?
b) Believes that to be fictitious American propaganda rather than something that actually happened?
c) Doesn't consider economic exploitation to count as economic exploitation when communist states do it?

And we can take it that had Cuba been run along the lines of a US paradise, that there would have been free, top quality health care, free education through to Uni, they would not have been divided by their colour, they would not have been shot indiscriminately by the police, they would not have a huge percentage living below the poverty line and a small minority obscenely rich, they would not have been sent to fight wars all around the world at the behest of the military/industrial forces that actually run the US.
Oh they would have been so well off that they would not have turned out in their thousands for the funeral of Castro.
I wonder if there is ever going to be a US president that they turn out so grief stricken for?

Fidel Castro was a ruthless tyrant and dictator, that murdered and brutalised his people and delivered them misery, poverty, poor health and education.

The social rights to which Tristan refers are not rights at all, but a political ideology that most people have no time for.

Marxism is a failed ideology, and any state employing it is a failed state.

Shadow Minister: You must be a minister in the coalition government........
But it will not be for long.

RLP,

Not an MP nor a dull witted left whinger grasping at a fact free fantasy.

Shadow Minister ; Tell me why is it that liberal rights are speech, association and assembly are 'rights' - to be preserved and defended ; but there are no contextual rights for food, shelter, social inclusion, and social solidarity to provide every human being with a fulfilling life?

Although perhaps you don't support those liberal rights either?

Certainly the Federal Government likes raising concerns about 18C but interferes with or tries to delegitimise other peoples' liberals rights when they are in opposition to the government....

Curmudgeonathome:

Yes Marx developed some of his ideas from Smith, Ricardo, Hegel, the Young Hegelians. Few thinkers are 'purely original'. But Marx gave rise to a broad TRADITION which still has a lot to say. Personally I don't agree with the whole of the orthodoxy, or with the whole of Leninism or Trotskyism either. But Marx is everyone from Marx himself, to Luxemburg and Kautsky, to Bernstein and Gramsci ; to all the generations of critical theory ; and so on. Within that very broad tradition there are conflicts as well... ie: structuralism and anti-structuralism.

But as a socialist I look to traditions that have only tenuous links to Marx as well.... eg: Carlo Rosselli, Jean Jaures, John Stuart Mill ( who was a liberal first, arguably, but also very sympathetic to socialism)...

And some of the anarchists had some good ideas too. (though I'm definitely not an anarchist) eg: Proudhon on mutual aid. Chomsky considers himself an anarchist and has interesting things to say today. Though I find Bakunin's embrace of 'propaganda of the deed' objectionable and counter-productive. ie: it embraced a terrorism which was used as a pretext to suppress Marxist social democracy.

Tristan,

I realise that an old marxist like yourself would consider that social inclusivity more important than freedom from torture or arbitrary detention, but perhaps you need some clarification.

Human rights are generally the protection of the individual from abuses from the state or other persons with power, while what you consider social rights are simply aspirational ideals that the state should meet.

That most western states already meet all the human rights and social rights while marxist states meet neither says it all.

shadow minimum: I have a shock for you.
You will not benefit from the crumbs of trickledown because there will be nothing trickling down.
It is all a big con by the obscene rich right to get support from people like you to keep them in power and continue to live as the born to rule.
So having been informed of that, are you still going to support your neolib masters?
They will not thank you but they will continue to dazzle you with the conjuring tricks of plenty and power......... one day.

RLP,

Fortunately for me I have the education to earn enough not to depend on the handouts that Labor uses to buy votes from feeble minded voters

Shadow Minister: As a left social democrat (or liberal democratic socialist) I support liberal rights, civil liberties, and social rights equally. I don't see this as being in conflict with my identification with PARTS of the Marxist tradition.

Human beings are not merely animals. They need more than somewhere to shelter and be well-fed.

But capitalism also tries to compartmentalise people narrowly. For example - efforts to narrow the scope of education to the demands of the labour market.

Human dignity and development also demands inclusion when it comes to culture, education and so on.

Tristan,

The conundrum for you must be then that if western capitalism delivers far more completely on human rights and your so called social rights than any version of marxism so far, then surely marxism is an abject failure.

Shadow Minister;

Western liberal democracy 'delivered' for several reasons:

a) It was under pressure from the Communist Bloc which made the elites of Western nations more likely to compromise on social rights, while upholding liberal rights - partly to legitimise as against the Eastern bloc. Those rights (liberal and social rights) are now under attack.

b) Post-WWII it was clear that there were benefits to strategic planning, and that the state sector had potential. This was also in the wake of the Great Depression which discredited traditional Economic Liberalism. The post-WWII 'consensus' included many socialist/social democrat elements. eg: the NHS in Britain. The German Christian Democrats were strong supporters of the resulting compromise of welfare state and mixed economy.

c) In both the West and the East there were 'core' and 'peripheral' national economies in competing world systems. (it happened to a lesser extent in the East ; but Romania was a social and environmental disaster because of the massive concentration of heavy industry) Neither East nor West delivered justice ; Though in the West superior material living standards were delivered through exploitation of the 'periphery'.

d) If you look the Western 'spheres of interest' you will see that Western imperialism was a reality ; and human rights were not so widely delivered in Central and South America , Indonesia, for a long time in Taiwan and South Korea ; and so on.

The question is: Where Western nations 'delivered' was it capitalism that did it? Or was it social democracy?

And if you personally, really truly believe in human liberties - and are a Liberal or Conservative - you could do worse than to work through LNP to get rid of the double standards on civil liberties and human rights that we see so often.

Also remember the Social Democrats were amongst the first to fight for free, universal and equal suffrage in Europe and elsewhere. Modern liberal democracy is in many ways a social democratic achievement. And social democracy began in Marxism ; and was strongly influenced by Marxism in the post-WWI environment - where much of Europe embraced liberal democracy under intense pressure from Communism.

Tristan,

I think we can both agree now that Marxism delivers neither human rights nor social benefits in any way close to what western capitalist based societies do.

As for the debate as to whether capitalism or social democracy delivered social benefits, the short answer is that while
Social democrats played a significant part, none of the social benefits would have been possible without the powerful economic engines of capitalism.

As for your points:

a) Considering the tyranny, poverty and misery in the communist bloc I find your suggestion of "pressure" from the communist bloc hard to swallow.

b) I don't see what strategic planning has to do with social "rights"

c) Romania was communist as far as I believe, and the economies of these "exploited" peripheral economies grew fantastically except in countries with dictators.

d) If you look at the Eastern sphere of influence, it is clear that there was as much Russian imperialism as that in the west. Again, dictatorships are never good for any rights.

As for human liberties, the biggest threat that I see is the censorship and rent seeking that the ALP and Greens are trying to foist on Australians in the name of political correctness.

Finally, I see huge differences between social democracy and Marxism, and from what I can recall there were social democratic type movements long before marxism.

Shadow Minister ;

Look a little more closely at social democratic history.

Social Democracy developed over the mid 19th to late 19th centuries as a largely Marxist movement. In Germany it was also influenced by Ferdinand Lassalle.

The German Social Democratic Party was formed around then by the combination of 'Eisenachers' (Marxists) and Lassalleans.

Perhaps their most important core demand was free, universal and equal suffrage. They were perhaps the strongest voices for democracy in their time.

Some of the strongest opponents of Leninism - and later Stalinism - were other Marxist social democrats. Think Rosa Luxemburg, Karl Kautsky, Julius Martov, Raphael Abramovitch. Following the Russian Revolution left wing Marxist social democrats also remained influential - for example the Austro-Marxists.

more coming.

Shadow Minister ;

Ok continuing - Yes its arguable that Russia's domination of the Eastern Bloc was similar in many ways to Western Imperialism. ie: maintaining economic, political and military spheres of interest. This led to policies and strategies every bit as cynical as their enemies' policies and strategies. Those strategies were increasingly opposed by the Communist Party of Australia from the 50s to the early 90s when it dissolved itself. The Stalinist split-offs were different entirely of course. And still make apologies for Stalin and Stalinism.

re: Strategic planning ; the argument is that a strong mixed economy, and some strategic intervention - as has occurred in some Scandinavian, European, Asian economies - can deliver results ; maintaining high wage, high skill jobs ; prioritising health and education outcomes ; adding structural efficiencies that contribute to quality of life. An economy that produces high value added goods, and which has full employment and structural efficiencies - can also use the proceeds to improve social services, welfare and infrastructure - and deliver other 'dividends' like a reduced working week, and holding down the age of retirement. It can improve peoples' social well-being.

re: PC - I agree PC can go too far. People need to be engaged and go through the arguments to arrive at a position - rather than just being terrified to argue for fear of being labelled, or worse. But economic orthodoxies are their own kind of 'PC'. Anti-PC often starts with free speech - but then transforms into right-wing reaction. Suppressing speech is not the answer, though. It can create a 'cultural pressure cooker' that blows up in the Left's face... With the explosion of a Trump-like movement ; or the 'National Front' in France for instance.

Free speech is also a right which should be interfered with only in exceptional instances. Notably for the Right's opposition to 18C they are often highly equivocal on other liberal and civil rights.

Tristan,

While I acknowledge that Marxism has had some influence on Western socialist movements, it is clear that these movements have evolved a great distance from rudimentary marxism. However, I don't feel the need to bone up on a failed ideology as it would be as useful and interesting as studying ancient Greek.

However, it is notable that the more socialist countries have had to pare back considerably to avoid bankruptcy when faced with global competition, as Thatcher rescued the UK.

Secondly:

Russia physically occupied many of the countries under its sway and not only imposed ruthless dictatorships, but dragged them into co poverty. Its imperialism was arguably far worse than that of the West.

Stalin was not the only Soviet Monster, but notably the worst killing more Russians than Hitler, but from Lenin, to Brezhnev, they all happily interred and executed millions of their so call comrades.

Strategic planning does not need socialism, and was achieved very well in the USA. Notably the Nordic states have had to pull back a long way from socialism to avoid bankruptcy.

I'm glad that we both agree that 18c has to go.

There are protections in 18D that almost no-one ever talks about. You have to view 18C in that context.

But 18C has to be clarified so we don't get a repeat of the Callum Thwaites case. His remark that "segregation was being used to stop segregation" was a *political* argument whether we like it or not. It may have been offensive to some on account of their politics- but I don't think it was racist in intent - or objectively.

But again: the LNP needs to be clearer where it stands on liberal rights FOR EVERYONE. That includes not striving to smash the trade union movement - on account of our having a Labor Party in this country. Regardless of whether or not you're a Labor person, unions defend legitimate rights - and are potentially a crucial line of defence for liberal democracy.

It also includes threatening people working amongst refugees to be silent lest they be fined or sent to jail. How does that sit with liberal rights?

And if either side of politics is interested in indigenous people its time for a Treaty ; including a very substantial settlement reaching into the billions. A 'settlement so just that it is a settlement once and for all'. (hopefully)

Nordic States still have very substantial welfare states and public sectors. And arguably they've done much better than states embracing neo-liberalism.

I identify more with Gorbachev than Brezhnev - or even Lenin.

re: 'whose imperialism was worse' ; Well you have to look VERY closely at Central and South America ; as well as Indonesia 1965-66 ; as well as Taiwan and South Korea earlier on - if you want to make that call.

re: "bankruptcy" - take a look at PRIVATE debt levels in Australia right now. Today our capitalist economy rests on massive private debt and it can't go on forever. Arguably - ironically - a 'hybrid' economy is perhaps the only way of 'saving' capitalism fro itself over the medium term - and to stop us lapsing into barbarism. Very big cutbacks are potentially just over the horizon - as a kind of 'corporate welfare' - and a lot of people are likely to suffer - unnecessarily.

also re: Lenin - Its a difficult topic ; He did and said many things I disagreed with. But in a way he tried to make the most of a terrible situation. War, civil war, intervention, assassinations, desperate poverty following economic collapse (because of intervention, war, isolation). Starvation, people freezing to death.... If the West had 'stayed out' the Civil War would have ended quickly. In less desperate circumstances the political strategies and tactics may not have been so extreme. The West hated him (Lenin) first because he took Russia out of the War. But also because he called for a global revolution. Interesting that in some countries - eg: Austria - they disagreed with the program for membership of the Comintern. Like Rosa Luxemburg I would have been torn between wishing the revolution well - and being appalled at some of the strategies and tactics. Though eventually I would have been forced to disavow its direction. Like the Austro-Marxists I could not have accepted the guidelines for membership of the Communist International. ('Third International' or 'Comintern')

Austro-Marxists are really interesting to look at as a 'middle way' between Leninism and Right-Wing Social Democracy.

Tristan,

I think that we should at least agree that the terms "offend" and "insult" which are entirely subjective in 18c should be removed to prevent rent seekers like Cathy Prior abusing the system to coerce money from victims.

Those who sign confidentiality clauses in their contracts forfeit the right to disclose information obtained due to these contracts. e.g. Lawyers and doctors get into trouble disclosing information on clients. Similarly, I would get fired from my job if I disclosed confidential information.

Secondly, the libs aren't trying to smash the unions, only prevent their thuggery and wanton breaking of laws.

Thirdly, I fail to see any point in a treaty. Aboriginals already get vastly preferential treatment.

Fourthly, having spent much time in Finland and Sweden, and having experienced the vast cost living and having seen the consequences of their inability to react to the GFC, I would disagree with you.

Looking at Soviet proxies in South America, Europe and elsewhere, the outcome was vastly better for those in the western sphere of influence. Taiwan and South Korea vs china and North Korea make my argument.

Private debt is just that, are you proposing that the government limit each person's borrowing?

Are you trying to excuse Lenin's genocide?

Lenin did not commit genocide ; what he did do was to behave utterly ruthlessly when confronted with intervention, destabilisation, starvation, civil war, the prospect of people freezing to death without heating materials... Trotsky was like-minded. Hence 'militarisation of labour' for example. What would have been better would be an ongoing 'dual power' policy - with power shared by the Constituent Assembly and the Soviets ; With the Red Army as the ultimate 'insurance policy'.

That said I think Lenin went down the wrong path. The "21 conditions" for membership of the Comintern attempted to impose Bolshevist Party Organisation - and accountability to the USSR - on every member Party. The Left was split of course as a consequence. The best tendencies attempted to form a "Two and a Half" international - which wanted 'a democratic revolution' and did not sell out their values; but in the end they were swallowed by what became 'The Socialist International' which deteriorated so much over time (especially after they were crushed with the rise of fascism) that it no longer had much practical or substantial political relevance.

re: Confidentiality agreements - would you hold your tongue if you WERE confronted with genocide? The crimes against refugees are not that: but there are gross breaches of human rights. I don't believe in 'the open door' - but I don't agree with torturing people for years on end as a 'deterrence' either.

re: Unions - we know the sentiment and the language deployed by the Conservatives in this country. Because we've always had 'a Labor party' there has been that extra incentive to 'smash the unions' - because they are the social base of the Labor Party. ie: The Conservatives electoral rival... Not to mention many Conservatives see smashing trade unions as a way of 'letting market forces go free' - where collective bargaining is viewed as a 'distortion'.

The Treaty is about the good relations and good will that flow from a just and final settlement. Indigenous peoples enjoy positive discrimination exactly because their social position is SO bad.

re: Cost of Living - giving the working poor a fairer deal will result in a higher cost of living for the middle class - because of high labour costs. But the working poor themselves would view that situation somewhat differently. Yes the working poor would be improving their position relative to what most view as 'the middle class'.

re: Private Debt - Yes the banks should face regulations to stop them sucking people into Debt Traps. If a person has insufficient means to pay back a loan ; and the loan is for private consumption and not to start up a business for example - then banks shouldn't be handing out credit cards to everyone without any care for the consequences.

Perhaps genocide is not the correct definition, I'll settle for Lenin committed large scale mass murder to put down a largely internal rebellion.

As Sovereign Borders has not required the incarceration of anyone I gather that you prefer this solution, and since no one has brought up any evidence of gross human rights violations in detention, I fail to see what you are complaining about.

As for the unions, especially the more corrupt and brutish such as the CFMEU, I gather that you support their criminal activities?

As there are no working poor in Aus, the wages are much higher than in Nordic states and the cost of living is lower, I don't see much benefit.

Who is going to judge whether Joe Smith is a credit risk? The banks generally lose out when someone defaults.

Without going into details I don't support 'criminal activities' in the usual sense of the word ; I do support unions enjoying industrial liberties which enable them to use their industrial leverage to secure better wages and conditions for their members. If legitimate liberties are criminalised I support civil disobedience. The CFMEU does have a massive 'warchest'. I'd like to see them use that to support industrially weaker unions in securing better deals for their members. If there are criminal activities that go beyond legitimate civil disobedience I don't support that.

But I do think there is a double standard that we've hard a Trade Union Royal Commission but nothing of the sort for the banks... Or white collar crime more generally... Some claim the Mafia has links to parts of the Liberal Party.

re: Lenin Yes millions died in the Civil War. Largely because millions had ALREADY died in the First World War ; and the West responded to the Revolution (whose aim was to end WWI) with military intervention and other destabilisation. A lot of the deaths were civilians - exactly because the infrastructure of Russia was collapsing. There was starvation ; and people dying from exposure to the elements. At the end of it all you have to blame both the Western powers who intervened, and Lenin... Lenin might have been able to ameliorate the situation if he had come to an agreement with the other socialist parties - and maintained a situation of dual power - again with the Red Army as the 'insurance policy'. Maybe in a less dire situation we would not have had military conscription, militarisation of labour and so on.

But you can't view the Revolution in context unless you also consider the history of WWI and Western Intervention.

Lenin's strategies led to Stalinism, though. Arguably it would have been better for the socialist revolution to fail, but the bourgeois revolution to succeed - when you consider that the experience of Stalinism discredited socialism in the eyes of millions for generations.

Tristan,

I think that the measures put in place with the ABCC etc don't interfere with the unions ability to organize and operate within reasonable limits. The TURC and a string of other scandals and prosecutions have shown that the physical assaults and intimidation, the illegal blockades, extortion, pilfering of union funds etc were essentially going unpunished.

Perhaps you could elucidate exactly which laws that the rest of us are subject to that you think the unions should be exempt from?

As for the plethora of atrocities committed under Lenin, while some can be excused in the fog of war, but most cannot, especially those that occurred post the revolution that involved forcing compliance in fact "Lenin killed 4 million people - men, women and little children. He is the 5th greatest murderer of the 20th century (after Stalin, Mao, Hitler and Chiang Kai-shek)."

Shadow Minister ; Did Lenin literally "kill four million people" or did that happen as a by-product of the Civil War? Where, when, how were those people killed? How are those figures substantiated?

Lenin was Machiavellian and ruthless but I don't think he was ever a Stalin-like monster - despite Stalin's attempts to misappropriate him. In that sense he's in a comparable boat as Churchill - although Churchill would be appalled at the comparison. But take Churchill's sinking of the French Fleet in 1940. Surely that's in a similar vein to Trotksy's attack on Kronstadt.

Interesting that you mention Chiang Kai-Shek, though. Many 'anti-communists' were just as bad as the Stalinists they opposed.

I think unions should have the full suite of industrial liberties ; withdrawal of labour, pattern bargaining and secondary boycott - so long as it can be argued convincingly that such action is "in good faith". I also think they should have access work-sites for organisational purposes. And political industrial actions should be allowed as well. If faced with a genuine totalitarian government unions could imaginably be 'a last line of defence'.

Tristan,

Look up the red terror. It is clear that Lenin was nearly as bad as Stalin. Particularly with respect to the Kulaks who he executed publicly in the hundreds to terrorise them.

So you are quite happy for unions that blockade companies, assault and intimidate workers that don't want to strike get prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Many Kulaks were executed for hoarding grain while people were starving to death in the rest of the country ; Though the Bolsheviks made the calculated decision that it was worth it to requisition most grain to shore up support in the cities. In the context of War Communism it was a big mistake. NEP came too late for some. But its a long way from '4 millions' to 'hundreds'. Again: Churchill also made 'tough' decisions - like sinking the French Fleet in 1940.

re: industrial struggles - yes there will be passions ; strike-breakers will be abused ; picket lines will be fought over ; there will be conflict. There will be boycotts. The question is how far do you allow things to go? Keep the conflict relatively low intensity if possible (ie: no-one gets maimed or killed, or incarcerated) and accept that certain kinds of civil disobedience are part of democracy. But keep in mind escalation might meet with escalation.

Tristan,

No matter how hard you try and polish the turd it is still a turd.

The red army took by force without compensation nearly all the grain the Kulaks possessed, the result of which is hundreds of thousands of Kulaks starved.

The tactics used included rounding up kulak leaders of any area that showed dissent and publicly executing 100s at a time, even those not directly involved.

As for union action, the laws that apply to everyone else needs to be applied to them. ie.
Pickets and boycotts are OK, blockades and vandalism are not.
Verbal abuse is OK, physical abuse and direct intimidation is not.

The ABCC is simply to ensure that if union thugs do the crime, they pay the consequences.

War Communism was arguably a mistake ; the extreme context was not enough food to go around and the conventional economy in a state of partial collapse; Grain hoarding and the black market meant other people would starve. It was a terrible situation. The situation would not have existed were it not for the Civil War. To say this is not 'polishing a turd' as you put it. It was a bad situation with a wide variety of interests to blame.

What's the difference (as you see it) between a picket and a blockade?

Tristan,

Firstly the contribution of outside anti communist forces was minor, and secondly the purpose of the red terror was to completely subjugate populations that they had conquered by mass executions, torture and starvation (today called genocide).

"The stated purpose of this campaign was struggle with counter-revolutionaries considered to be enemies of the people. Many Russian communists openly proclaimed that Red Terror was needed for extermination of entire social groups or former "ruling classes.

Lenin had announced in advance that he would use terror to accomplish his revolutionary ends. In 1908 he had written of "real, nation-wide terror, which reinvigorates the country."[1] Marxism-Leninism, Lenin's revolutionary revision of Marx's class struggle, made clear that they were in an all-out war with the "forces of reaction."

Bolshevik leader Grigory Zinoviev seemed to be advocating genocide when he declared in mid-September of 1918:
To overcome of our enemies we must have our own socialist militarism. We must carry along with us 90 million out of the 100 million of Soviet Russia's population. As for the rest, we have nothing to say to them. They must be annihilated."

Could the soviet government been established without the murder of millions, certainly. That is why Lenin ranks just below Stalin and Hitler as mass killers. And that is why I consider your white washed version of communism as a polished turd.

Yes but a couple of points:

Ok I take your point that the numbers of Foreign interventionist troops 'on the ground' in were relatively small ; But the White Armies also had logistical support from many of the victorious Allies.

Also again: Millions of civilians died ; You point to Zinoviev's statement ; If he meant literal murder of 10% of the population yes that would be appalling. But without knowing Zinoviev's intention communists aimed to annihilate the bourgeoisie *as a class* but not individually as human beings ; That is - to dissolve class social relations - not to annihilate human beings. To interpret it as annihilating human beings - would be a gross distortion of Marx's intentions.

And also so again: Most of the civilians who died did so out of exposure to the elements and starvation. This happened as a consequence of the First World War, and of the Civil War that followed. But 'it takes two to Tango'.

Whether the White Armies could have put up the resistance they did without Foreign Intervention and logistical support - I'm not certain of the extent of it... But the Russian economy was already falling apart at the seams in 1917.

The Bolsheviks tried to re-establish order to prevent starvation and exposure to the elements. Measures that I personally am profoundly uncomfortable with - eg: labour militarisation - were justified like this... But it was a horrific situation. You can blame it partly on the Whites; Partly on intervention and Western logistical support for the Whites ; But yes you can blame it partly on the Bolsheviks... In the sense that they had the opportunity to try and consolidate the Democratic forces in the Constituent Assembly - hopefully under conditions of Dual Power ; with the maintenance of the Red Army... But they chose 'to go it on their own'. That possibly made everything worse.

Tristan,

I find that your version of history and events differs radically from most historical records.

I also bothers me that you can dismiss so lightly millions of people under the control of the Bolsheviks being shot or starved to death after their food is stolen at gunpoint by the bolsheviks. Given that this occurred after Lenin declared the "terror", It stretches credibility to claim that most of this was not the deliberate fault of the Bolsheviks.

I'm not dismissing it lightly at all ; I agree the Bolsheviks can be seen as sharing the blame ; because a compromise on the Constituent Assembly may have mitigated the Civil War ; and that may have moderated the collapse. Of course the defence of the Bolsheviks is that it may have made the Civil War worse by giving their enemies a chance to organise... But we will never know now... What we DO know it that Bolshevism as it was led to Stalinism. But it was not Lenin's or Trotsky's intention.

But to suggest they were deliberately starving millions to death is wrong. Those were the very reasons Trotsky used to justify labour militarisation. (ie the alternative was social and economic collapse ; starvation and death by exposure to the elements)

My argument is that labour militarisation might have been avoided on the basis of a democratic compromise.

The histories you're referring to may not be 100% unbiased either. My sympathy is with the Left wing Mensheviks. Like Martov ; But also Kautsky (a German Social Democrat... well - actually born a Czech) Martov and Kautsky had some of the most telling critiques of the Bolsheviks - from a socialist perspective. Rosa Luxemburg also wrote some excellent critiques before she was murdered.

Also if the Bolsheviks had not 'stolen' grain at gunpoint - and had turned the other way on hoarding - many more people would have died. As I said - the Bolsheviks had options in other ways... Which might have got the Constitutional Democrats and Mensheviks onside... But I ask you to consider what you would do if farmers were 'hoarding' - and hundreds of thousands faced starvation in other parts of the country.

Tristan,

Documented conversations of the Bolshevik leaders and the vastly disproportionate treatment of the Kulaks including the mass public executions and the looting of nearly all their food so that 100 000s starved makes it clear that other than obtaining their food, that the exercise was largely to force their submission in a similar way that Hitler used subsequently, and ranks as one of the greatest violation of Human rights in history.

To claim that the Bolsheviks were only obliquely responsible for this genocide stretches credibility to the breaking point and beyond.

Well it was Stalin who decided to 'liquidate' the Kulaks ; and took this to the point of literalism. Stalin was responsible for the deaths of millions. Whether the Communist Party under Stalin still deserved the name 'Bolsheviks' is VERY questionable. Almost every member of the 1917 Central Committee had been killed by Stalin by the 1930s.

I don't make any 'apologies' for Stalin. But 'Terror' is always a dreadful thing whether you're talking about the Jacobins, the Bolsheviks, or Thiers exacting revenge of the French Communards. That's one reason I prefer gradualism ; perhaps with 'watershed' moments of significant social democratic advance. What Karl Kautsky called 'war of attrition ; or Otto Bauer's 'slow revolution'. (ie: preferably qualitative change via democracy)

Re: any 'deliberate policy of starvation' - if you can show where this happened under Lenin I'd be interested to see. (can you give a URL to a reputable website?) I'm open minded about it. But it was my impression it happened under Stalin.

In any case I don't consider myself a Bolshevik.

https://espressostalinist.com/2012/03/13/lenin-on-the-kulaks/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenin's_Hanging_Order

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Red_Terror

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/modern-world-history-1918-to-1980/russia-1900-to-1939/the-red-terror/

http://spartacus-educational.com/RUSterror.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Terror

Lenin's so-called "Hanging Order" was discussed during a controversy about the BBC documentary Lenin's Secret Files (1997) based upon Robert Service's findings in Soviet archives. This is Service's English translation of the Russian original:

"Comrades! The insurrection of five kulak districts should be pitilessly suppressed. The interests of the whole revolution require this because 'the last decisive battle' with the kulaks is now under way everywhere. An example must be demonstrated.
Hang (and make sure that the hanging takes place in full view of the people) no fewer than one hundred known landlords, rich men, bloodsuckers.
Publish their names.
Seize all their grain from them.
Designate hostages in accordance with yesterday's telegram.
Do it in such a fashion that for hundreds of kilometres around the people might see, tremble, know, shout: "they are strangling, and will strangle to death, the bloodsucking kulaks".
Telegraph receipt and implementation.
Yours, Lenin.
Find some truly hard people"[7]

Stalin's genocide was far worse, but it was simply a continuation of what Lenin started.

Shadow Minister ; I know about this ; But check the Wikipedia entry on the Hanging Order again ; Yes the threat was an instrument of Terror ; but at the time of issuing (ie: before Stalin) to what extent was it followed through? Lenin specifically wanted "at least 100" targeted. I don't excuse the action - because I believe the death penalty is generally another form of murder. Especially where its a political weapon of Terror. But it puts it into perspective compared with what happened later under Stalin.

Tristan are you seriously putting up that the serial killer Lenin was OK because his successor killed a lot more people?
Fair enough, good point so when are you going to write demanding that people stop criticising Hitler because he killed less Russians than either of them.
How old are you Tristan, 10, 11?

J Bowyer ; What do you make of Churchill sinking the French fleet then? Or even the strategic bombing of Japan and Germany? Personally I prefer to remain 'morally pure'. Seriously I don't think you can legitimately put a 'price' on a human life. But I can see the other side as well. If put in their place maybe I would be forced to compromise my principles. Lenin was trying to save millions of lives threatened by starvation. Churchill saw that Hitler getting his hands on the French fleet could have turned the war. Ditto strategic bombing of Japan and Germany. There are strong moral arguments against as well. But at least try to be consistent!

SO what do you make of those other examples?

Tristan - The French fleet had to be sunk or their guns would have been turned on the Royal Navy. In hindsight of course, strategic bombing was a dud and should have been seen as such. Certainly by the British but mistakes are made and that is still being perpetrated by everyone. Lenin was a complete despot and the last thing that saved anyone from starvation was killing other people.
The Communist experiment was a complete and utter fail. China is now realising that but their Lenin equivalents will try all they can to morph into a new aristocracy before it is left to capitalism to sort it out.
Have a happy Christmas Mate and I apologise for being personal.

Thanks for the Christmas well-wishes. Its appreciated to keep that in mind this time of year. We'll have to agree to disagree on Lenin. Lenin turned to harsh measures in response to civil war, assassination attempts ; the threat of starvation, exposure to the freezing cold - and hundreds of thousands literally freezing or starving to death.

That said I didn't like his strategies. I would have been with Julius Martov and the Left-wing Mensheviks. Try and forge a compromise based on consolidating the bourgeois democratic revolution ; but perhaps going further by keeping the Red Army as an 'insurance policy'. Aim for a gradual transition to democratic socialism later down the track once democratic rights were consolidated with a democratic state... Sort of like what they tried in Austria. Except the Red Army would be the dominant military force - alongside liberal democratic institutions (the constituent assembly); hopefully bringing all the democratic forces onside....

Lenin's context was also trying to force an end to the First World War. Which is what makes the Civil War that followed such a tragedy. He wanted to deliver bread, land and peace. He only delivered on redistributing land. And his centralisation model led over the longer term to Stalinism. Rosa Luxemburg saw the threat ; but after she was murdered the Left of Social Democracy embraced the Third International and its 21 points.

Maybe you're right about strategic bombing... My mother always believed her father would not have survived Changi if not for Hiroshima. But firebombing causing perhaps over a million civilian deaths in Europe and Japan should be scrutinised. SO many people without any personal guilt for the war. Would the same kind of thing be thinkable today?

Tristan,

There is clear evidence that thousands of Kulaks were murdered and starved at Lenin's behest, not just to curb hoarding, but to bludgeon them into submission.

While Stalin was no doubt the worst killer in the 20th century, the difference between Stalin and Lenin was only of how many they murdered.

The comparison with Churchills sinking of 3 state of the art French battleships is fatuous and you know it, as the Germans would have used them to devastating effect, and the French were not only given ample warning, but were also under the instruction of their superiors to scuttle their fleet, and separately did so to several other vessels.

The difference between Lenin and Stalin was that one (Lenin) implemented the Terror because of a perceived grim necessity re: starvation and economic collapse . as well as internal insurrection (perhaps backed with intervention) - Whereas under Stalin Terror escalated immensely and became a permanent means of social control. ie: 'Totalitarianism'. You argue that Churchill acted out of necessity. And you argue that effectively Lenin did not act out of perceived necessity. I agree re: Churchill it was a difficult decision. Perhaps if he had waited it would not have been necessary. Or perhaps it would have been a disaster with the French fleet turning. Re: whether there is a parallel with Lenin: We will have to disagree because I believe Lenin responded to the threat of starvation. Again that doesn't make me a Leninist. I would have been with the Left Mensheviks, the 'Two and a Half International' and so on. Probably Stalin would have had me shot. Lenin may have had me exiled. There's no doubt Lenin was ruthless and manipulative - but then so are most politicians. There are plenty of other examples of 'Western ruthlessness' ; just take Central and South America during the Cold War. (re: the US) But if we criticise again let's be consistent. Let's consider Lenin was trying to end WWI even if his efforts ended disastrously with civil war. Again as I've said I think he had other strategies to achieve this had he tried.

Tristan a recent book by Max Hastings said that Germany was not badly affected by the strategic bombing, in fact they were producing more tanks than Britain in the last months of the war. The German Minister who was in prison advised that when the Allies targeted the German fuel plants the NAZI's were a week away from collapse and only saved because Bomber Command convinced the Government to go back to bombing cities.
Britain was bombed day and night for months and kept going but obviously Allied Command thought the German people were weaker? Shocking mistake and the most shocking thing is that this is still not acknowledged.

though Allied strategic bombing was far more intensive and killed many more people (many hundreds of thousands in total) ; arguably the Bombing of Dresden drove refugees Westward - costing the Nazi government logistically - ie: destroying infrastructure in the East and overwhelming it in the West. Who knows what to believe? Some say around 20,000 died in Dresden ; others say closer to 200,000. About 35,000 died during the Blitz I seem to recall. More than how many Australians died in total in WWII. But many Germans just 'buckled under' because the Gestapo was everywhere ; and dissent meant death.