Specific flaws in implementing communism?

**
But I don’t see this as a “technicality” at all. It is the very heart of the matter. Communism is an economic system. Therefore, you can’t look at a “movement” as an example of successful communism because movements aren’t economically viable. They have external inputs of capital and material support.

Think of it like this. A successful economy has to be a sort of perpetual motion machine. It has to run on its own power and, it order to grow, produce more than it consumes. Just like a perpetual motion machine, it doesn’t really “work” if it will only run while hooked up to an external power source.

Therein lies the problem. I have yet to see any empirical evidence that suggests that communism can actually work, whatever its philosophical attractions.

zigaren:

Goodness. You come back with both guns ablazin’, don’t you?

But to answer your question, no, I cannot cite any such studies. Please allow me to nevertheless express my skepticism regarding the value anything produced by that august and erstwhile institution, the US Army.

** I don’t find this to be particularly compelling information, since the division of ”income range” into thirds assumes a smooth, straight curve in terms of income distribution. In other words, a more interesting measure would be comparing in terms of quintiles (or something else along those lines).

** This tells me that the upper 10th suffered approximately 17.8% fewer casualties per 100,000 than the bottom 10th. It also strikes me that this is arguably much more than a ”marginal” difference, especially when we also consider that many of the ”affluent” (and what a charming aphorism, by the way) were required for high-risk work (such as helicopter pilots, doctors, and so forth) – which is pointed out as well by the study you cite.

** Naturally, I don’t advocate making up numbers. But I would like to note again that even your report that the majority of ”grunts” in Nam were from poor backgrounds.

I don’t have any material of my own to cite in this context, but even given that fact I still think that one must be very careful in assessing studies such as the one you refer to. There is an inherent risk that with a little fast footwork, statistically, a truly significant difference (almost 18%) can disappear as a ”marginal” statistical correlation of .6. In other words, statistics can create the illusion that a given picture is ”scientifically confirmed,” when in reality the measures upon which it is based are not all that accurate.

Uhh…I backed that up with my personal experiences while serving in the US military from 1988 to 1990.

Your last statistics are interesting (where did you find them?) If the army was 20% black during Nam, while the general population in the States was 10% black, this indicates a 100% over-representation of blacks in the Army. Given the fact that we were drafting at that time, this strikes me as a bit much. Also, given that 12% of the casualties in Nam were black, this would seem to indicate that they were almost twice as good as whites at not getting killed.

Please feel free to correct my math; I’m not an expert in statistical analysis, and some of my conclusions could be simply incorrect.

jjimm, Of course Captain Corelli’s Mandolin is anti-communist/contains a strong anti-communist message. The man who wrote it is related to the Fascist puppet dictator that the AXIS powers installed in Athens when Greece was invaded. When the film was screened in Greece there was outrage. The Greek partisans who had fought the Fascists were a tad upset at his little pro-fascist fantasy.
So I say in the name of all those who have ever stood against fascism: BOYCOTT Captain Corelli’s Mandolin.

“They shall not pass”

I believe, but am not certain, that you are assuming that they have divided the “income range” into thirds by income. I assume that they have divided it by population. This would make it the three-part equivalent of quintiles. Otherwise, I don’t grasp your objection here.

But the real point is that your critiques are based on speculation. Yes, they may have manipulated the numbers, they may not be competent statisticians and they may have just taken that US Army check and spent it on Cuban cigars while plucking their numbers out of thin air. One good way to find out is to actually read their report. (Operations Research, Vol. 40, No. 5, September-October, 1992)

**

“In analogy with a widely used economic indicator, the authors devised a
“disparity score” under which “zero” means no net link between economic
status and casualty rates, and “one” means an extreme concentration of
war deaths among the poor. They estimated the national disparity score
for Vietnam to be about 0.06, which suggests only weak association
between income and per capita casualty rates.”*

Obviously, one can argue over what constitutes a “marginal” vs. an “extreme” disparity.

**

Perhaps we are arguing at cross-purposes here, this report does not pretend to argue that economic status had no effect on job assignment. It recognizes the possibility that high income people may have been over represented in high skill jobs while low income people may have made up the bulk of the “grunts.” But a dead helicopter pilot is just as dead as a dead grunt. This report suggests that Viet Nam deaths were spread equitably over the economic spectrum.

At the risk of sounding stupid, I am unfamiliar with your use of the word “aphorism.”

**

I’m not so certain of this. I believe that you are referring to the remark:
*
Even if few affluent youths were among the `grunts’ in the
Vietnam front lines, it could be fallacious to infer from that
circumstance that well-off Americans were out of harm’s way."*

In this remark, the “Even if” could be interpreted in two ways. Since their research did not address this subject, I am assuming that it means that they recognize the possibility and nothing more.

**

**

Remember that 80% of the Viet Nam era military was volunteers. (There was a recent GQ thread on this). Also: blacks at this time made up 13.5% of the draft age male population, and they were apparently grossly under represented in the Navy, Air Force and Marines. Also, I am not certain about that 20% figure, as I indicated, it is from memory.

**

Possibly a higher percentage of blacks volunteered. Since volunteers were in for four years vs. two years for draftees, it was in the Army’s interest to give them training for the kind of skilled jobs that tended to keep one off of the front lines. But this is just speculation; I don’t have any hard data to back this up.

Ron

zigaretten:

Clearly, I don’t have access to the study we are discussing – and even if I did, I might lack the technical knowledge necessary to critique it. (Have you read it, by the way?) In and of itself, that doesn’t mean that one cannot ask critical questions regarding the information we do have.

Regarding the division of the “income range,” I’m a bit uncertain… My point was that wealth in the US is really disproportionately concentrated at the very top end of the spectrum, that is to say, in the top 5 to 10 percent of the population. If we are going to argue the pros and cons of viewing Vietnam as a “class” war – in the sense that the lower classes were sent to do the fighting, and the upper classes were let off the hook – then we need to adjust our statistics to follow the actual income curve in the States.

Strangely, if we look at the figures presented by this report, it would imply that the middle third of the population really bore the brunt of the war – 44% of KIAs were from the middle income range. I can’t square this figure without coming to the conclusion that this middle 3rd was the most populous group. But you’re right; its difficult to figure out what the authors are referring to without access to the study itself.

You’re also correct that I was referring precisely to the passage with the “.6” correlation figure, which would indicate a “weak” correlation. My point is that significant differences in casualties as related to class structure might be less visible when averaged out across a larger population. It appears that this is exactly what the study does. If it were to compare the top 10th directly with the bottom 10th, I would wager that the correlation would be significantly higher – but of course, there’s no way to know for sure.

Agreed. The real point I’m trying to raise here is that one must be very careful in interpreting such studies. To be completely honest, I don’t think it provides much evidence one way or another, and I suspect that other studies using other sorts of measures and/or methodologies might give different results.

I was referring to this statement:

  • “That excess reflects the disproportionate presence of the affluent in such hazardous roles as pilots or infantry captains and lieutenants. Even if few affluent youths were among the `grunts’ in the Vietnam front lines, it could be fallacious to infer from that circumstance that well-off Americans were out of harm’s way.” *

I think my point, perhaps argued none too well, was that despite a disproportionate reliance on the wealthy for high risk jobs, they nevertheless suffer a 17.8% lower casualty rate compared to the bottom 10th. (And you’re right, I misuse the word “aphorism” here. I meant something else that starts [I think] with an “a” – aneurysm? Anachronism? I don’t know….something.)

I had no idea that the Army contained so many volunteers during the Vietnam War.

Finally, note to self: polish up on those reading skills, dude.

Talk is cheap, when communists talk, they lie. Pictures are worth a thousand words. Here is the bloody face of communism when the Russians, Chinese, and Cubans came into Rhodesia, Angola, and South Africa, brainwashing the black populace and white traitors into rampaging these countries. Be warned, some of these pictures are gruesome.
Southern Africa’s Gruesome Gallery
For decades the world was inundated with anti-Colonial propaganda of communist origin. To this day, people mock us when we tell them that the communists, especially the Russians, and to a lesser degree, the Chinese, came after us. Terror is nothing new. Terror is an old communist tactic. Come and take a look at how we were visited by more terror than you could dream of.

NB: A must see, is the section “The Russians & Communists in South Africa”. You will see some things in there which will amaze you. Also, don’t miss “Farm Murders in South Africa” (if you have the stomach for it)

Note, some sections of this gallery contain extremely disturbing images. These have been separated into sections of their own. The worst are marked on the left as "(Gruesome) ". The more tolerable photos are marked as "(Bloody) ".

When Terrorists win & rule countries… http://WWW.AfricanCrisis.Org/Photos4.asp
1990, The Outlook is gloomy… http://WWW.AfricanCrisis.Org/Photos14.asp
Landmines in Southern Africa… http://WWW.AfricanCrisis.Org/Photos5.asp
The Russians in Mozambique… http://WWW.AfricanCrisis.Org/Photos12.asp
(Important) The Russians in Angola… http://WWW.AfricanCrisis.Org/Photos13.asp
(Important) The Russians & Communists in South Africa… http://WWW.AfricanCrisis.Org/Photos15.asp
The Planned Russian Invasion of Rhodesia… http://WWW.AfricanCrisis.Org/Photos6.asp
The Liberators were Communists… http://WWW.AfricanCrisis.Org/Photos7.asp
(Gruesome) Terror in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe… http://WWW.AfricanCrisis.Org/Photos8.asp
(Gruesome) Terror in Angola… http://WWW.AfricanCrisis.Org/Photos9.asp
(Bloody) Terror in South Africa… http://WWW.AfricanCrisis.Org/Photos11.asp
(Bloody) More terror in South Africa (on another website)… http://home.mweb.co.za/sa/savimbi/photo1.htm
Robert Mugabe: The Racist Marxist… http://WWW.AfricanCrisis.Org/Photos3.asp
(Bloody) Zimbabwe (from 2002-present)… http://WWW.AfricanCrisis.Org/Photos10.asp
(Gruesome) Farm Murders in South Africa (from 1994-present)… http://WWW.AfricanCrisis.Org/Photos16.asp

The truth is not pretty. Let us discuss the truth.

I see what you are saying, Truthseeker. Since I abhor the communism of China, Cuba, and the former USSR, I don’t have much ground to stand on, since basically every other instance of communism that has sprouted up has been squashed. You might get from my posts that I idolize Vietnam. But in fact since the war they have been far from peaceful, internally and internationally.

But how much of that has to do with the fact that a huge percentage of their farmland was bombed/defoliated? That millions of their people died? That the war with the US strained relationships with neighboring countries (particularly Cambodia and the use of the Ho Chi Minh trail). What I’m saying is; how can we say what is successful or not when a country/movement is debilitated before it even got started?

As far as empirical evidence, there has to be a set of standards to agree on first. I could say the same thing about capitalism, if I based my belief on what ‘successful’ is by

  1. how free all people are to pursue their own goals/dreams in a way they see fit
  2. how much of the population has basic needs taken care of such as shelter, food, health care, and education
  3. how equal the access to the above institutions is

etc.

Economically, there is a lot to be said for communism and economy, especially in fairness.

Example: The first lightbulb. Still works. Is in a museum somewhere (details hazy, cite: Mr. Smarty Pants Knows or L.M. Boyd or some such middlebrow odd fact giver)
But since capitalism depends on high levels of consumerism to be effective, light bulbs are designed to give out after some amount of hours. Same with cars. Do you doubt that we have the technology to create cars that need little maintenance and can last upwards of 15-20 years? Think about all the shit you constantly have to buy and maintain and fix on cars, and how much of your income goes to that. As a result, we are constantly buying and replacing, etc. (Keep in mind I understand that things are subject to wear-and-tear, but i’d argue that under capitalism things wear-and-tear much more quickly).

That is no problem, if everyone were making enough to support this ‘forced’ consumerism. It’d keep the economy going, with plenty of money being made and spent. But alas it isn’t so. Many people (myself included) are financially devastated when little ‘replacements’ come up. To some of course (a small minority comparatively) this is but a pebble in front of them.

Under communism, there’d be alot less consumerism (good and bad, I think). But commodities would be high quality, as it would be inefficient for a car, for example, to be breaking down all the time. Higher quality=less need for labor, less hassle, less need for replacement (and the cost it takes for production)…I think it would work out.

Keep in mind I know high quality items exist in America too. But at a much higher price, making it accessible only to the rich unless extreme concessions in standard of living are made by the poor. I am poor and I pay out of my ass for my organic vegetables and my ‘real’ beer. Why shouldn’t quality beer be standard? Why shouldn’t quality food be standard?

I know you could read this and say, ‘but still, where is the example of a country? where is my empirical evidence?’ And I would have to concede that it is hard to find such evidence with communism as I outlined above (although it is quite a bit easier with democratic socialism). But I implore you to atleast take note of what I said.

Another big problem with communism that I’m surprised nobody mentioned is, “do you really want to trust everything to the government?” a quick communist would say, ‘a government in the hands of the people would be a just one, quite unlike the governments we know today.’ But I am very wary of the abuse of power, and how easy and almost inevitable it is. My only solution is to make everything smaller, which brings me right back to the beginning of my argument.

On the other hand, we’ve seen what privatizing basic things like utilities has done (recently in California for example).

Ah, politics. you lose you lose. Scylla and Charibdas.
which is less fierce?
the one that insures that basic human needs are met for everyone, I’d say. (although it is my opinion).

peace
colin

I don’t doubt that we have the technology to create cars that last 20-30 years. In fact, many people drive such cars. I know several of my friends who drive cars built in the 70’s, all of them made in capitalist countries like America, Jpan, and Germany, needless to say. Fact is, the car companies have put a lot of research into making their products more reliable and longer-lasting, with evident results. Models that are known for high maintenace costs usually sell poorly and eventually vanish, replaced by better ones. And long-lasting cars are not available only to the rich. My brother drives a Geo Prism from 1984. Detroit and the foreign companies have also been getting better at safety and other such issues. They have to; it’s the principle of competition. By contrast, in East Germany, there was really only one model of car available to most people. It was called the Trobby (sp?) and was generally agreed to be a worthless piece of sh*t.

Obviously, it would be inefficient for a car to be breaking down all the time. That’s not the point. The point is that scientists and engineers in a communist country who get assigned to car design don’t have any motivation to improve the current model, since they aren’t facing competition. Furthermore, they would have fewer resources at their disposal to do research even if they were motivated to do so.

Depends. Most socialist thought nowadays is of the Marxist/Leninist bent. Perhaps if you could cite a branch of socialism or communism that isn’t informed by Marxian economics, Marxian dialectics, and historical materialism (which was originally Hegelian, but adopted by Marx) we could talk. Until then, I’m pretty confident in putting Marx at the base of it.

Again, depends. What sort of economic, epistemological and ontological base does Satrean and Frommian communism derive from? If they’re Marxian, then critiques of Marxian economics et al apply.

The problems embedded in communism cited by Mister E in his earlier post, of course.

If it were merely a philosophy, you might have a point. It’s not. Marxism/Socialism is a political economic system, and as such is as vulnerable to critique as the liberal political and neo-classical economic systems that Marxists tend to criticize so heavily and so bitterly. The problem I was talking about was the lack of coherence. Even the broadest philosophy must be on some level coherent; there should be some epistemological and ontological premises it is based on. Expansiveness is one thing, but slipperiness is quite another. See below.

You can’t pick and choose elements of the socialist paradigm to suit you if you wish to take advantage of the basic concepts and assumptions of the philosophy and the logical strength that those assumptions lend those elements and that paradigm. Marxist politics is pretty damned worthless without Marxist economics, which don’t make sense unless you use the Marxian epistemological paradigm, which (thanks to Marx’s objectivism and activism) is tied into Marxist politics.

Cute, but not accurate. I’m not arguing a false dichotomy; I’m questioning wholesale abandonment of paradigmatic epistemology.

I’m also using bloody long words doing it. :smiley:

First off, zigaretten:

Euphemism! That’s the word I was looking for.

Next, Demosthenesian:

Well…most “democratic socialist” parties in Europe are at least to some extent inspired by a Marxist critique of capital, and are generally skeptical of the free-market panacea. To a great extent the socialist program can be understood as a modification of Marxist ideology in response to precisely those sorts of criticisms Mister E has directed at it. Could “democratic socialism” serve as a branch of socialism that isn’t informed by the Dialectic?

This would seem to rule out the possibility that any system of philosophy, like Marxism, can evolve. There is such a thing as Neo-Marxism which, while maintaining a critical stance regarding capitalism, nevertheless addresses many of the flaws underlying classical Marxism. So, in other words, I disagree; I think you can pick and chose. Paradigmatically, Marxism is large enough so that you can accept some aspects of it, and reject others, without damaging the paradigm in toto.

For what its worth, I think that one also needs to differentiate between Marxism as an analytical tool, on the one hand, and Marxism as a political ideology, on the other. There is a great deal of validity to many of the claims made by Marxists and neo-Marxists regarding the way in which a capitalist system functions. Hell, modern marketing research is explicitly based on class analysis. Even the most conservative of economists admit that capitalism structures society into classes based on income; most also admit that capitalism alone does not do a very good job at redistributing wealth, but that under such a system wealth tends to gravitate upwards. This occurs in accordance with Marx’s predictions.

As a program for political action, however, I’m not fully comfortable with Marxism’s ideas on class consciousness, dictatorship of the proletariat, and so on.

Finally:

Regarding the successful implementation of communism, by the way, I wonder how the OP considers the attempts of Julius Nyrere in Tanzania to establish a modified version of Marxism called “African socialism.” Granted that the IMF pummeled Nyrere for his refusal to follow their developmental formula, but I’m nevertheless of the understanding that African socialism presented a number of insurmountable structural defects.

Euphemism?? How about appellation?

**

Yes, I have seen it (“read it” might be overstating my capacity for absorbing incredibly boring statistical reports) but I haven’t memorized it. If you are really interested then I can get a copy, but not right away. (If you are really, really interested then I can send you a copy. But it should be available at some nearby large University.
**

I believe that you are making this more complicated that it really is. The income distribution would be a bell curve. But a bell curve can be divided into three groups; the richest third, the poorest third and the third in the middle. We could also divide it into four groups or 100 groups or we could devise a method of evaluating the distribution without dividing it into groups at all, which is what this study did.
**

Why not simply believe that the middle third did suffer the most deaths? (Let’s avoid expressions along the lines of who “bore the brunt of the war” because that has implications which go beyond the scope of this study.) After all, we can speculate that both the rich and the poor had ways to avoid the war. The rich could go to medical school or use connections to get into the National Guard. In addition they would have higher educational levels which; though sometimes resulting in high risk jobs like helicopter pilot, would often lead to safe jobs like journalist or bookkeeper for the Quartermaster Corps.

The poor would more often be in prison or have arrest records which made them ineligible for military service. They would also be represented more highly amongst those whose educational levels are too low even for the Army. (Project 100,000, which was discussed in an earlier post, was aimed at “the disadvantaged”.) If they tended to marry and have children at an earlier age, then they might have qualified for some sort of “hardship” exemption; at any rate they might have been less likely to volunteer under those circumstances.

Or perhaps it results from the poor being more likely to volunteer. As I said earlier, volunteers were in for four years rather than two and therefore got a lot of the safer jobs involving low level training; truck driver or typewriter repairman and so forth. But remember, this is all just speculation, the report in question says nothing about any of this.
**

You may be right up to a point. I’ve already stated that the report indicates that the lowest tenth suffered about 20% more deaths/100,000 than the highest tenth. But all by itself this could be misleading, as you’ve noticed it seems to be the middle who actually suffered the most casualties rather than either extreme.
**

Maybe I should point out why I cite this study. For years, ever since before the Viet Nam war ended, I have heard repeatedly that the poor and minorities suffered the vast majority of the casualties and “ore the brunt of the war” as you say. This has been propagated in the media, cited by politicians, and repeated in scholarly documents. When the Gulf war broke out I heard it virtually daily. But not one of these people who made the claim ever offered a single of evidence to back it up. It was just one of those things that “everybody” knew. Well, if I’ve learned one thing in my life it is that what “everybody knows” is very often dead wrong. This study is, as far as I know, the only study ever done on the subject.

Until someone else comes up with another study with different results, this will be the final word, in my opinion. Just saying that there could be something wrong with it or someone else might get different results doesn’t cut it. I could say the same thing about any study you care to mention, sight unseen.

And they call us (radical liberals) idealistic :wink: . Hardship exemptions my ass! I did a huge final essay as my senior seminar thesis on the racism inherent in the draft. I searched frantically for it, but it is lost in my tome of folders, notebooks, and papers.

Draft boards were overwhelmingly white, and often very judgemental towards black people and their beliefs. Muslims were often denied CO status, for example, because they have jihad. That is, they believe in war if it is just. Criminal records were often used as reasons to draft people.

Harship exemption? My cite is in my paper, which I know bears little weight until I find it (but I vow to goddammit!), but the book I read that I used extensively in my paper was entirely made up of draft board records… There were a surprising number of minorities who were dirt ass poor and had people to support who were denied economic hardship deferments. I’ve read some truly horrible stories along these lines. The kind of stories that belong in News of the Weird because they are truly stranger than fiction.

George Hamilton, to use one example (you know, the guy who is always really really tan- the actor) was granted an economic hardship deferment because his mother lived alone, had a medical condition, had only one live-in RN, and lived in a small mansion in southern California.

If you believe that the institutions in America have always been these benevolent, just administrators to all people regardless of skin color, religious affiliation, political affiliation, earned income, etc., then I would say you are the one living in some utopian idealist fantasy world. And I’m not sure how much further we can go in the conversation.

I think it is pretty overwhelmingly obvious that the elite power system is biased, and horrendous injustices have been incurred on those without power again and again throughout history. And the Vietnam War was no exception. Do you really want to argue against this?

colin

Colinito67

To begin, reread this statement:

Um………….we haven’t had much of a conversation up to now. But feel free to show me where I’ve said “the institutions in America have always been these benevolent, just administrators to all people regardless of skin color, religious affiliation, political affiliation, earned income, etc.”

**

I hope you find it.

**

You will of course be giving me cites for all of this?

**

I would love to hear all about this book.

In the mean time you may want to check out the book “The Draft: 1940-1973” by G.Q. Flynn. He discusses at some length the fact that in Viet Nam draftees had more education and better scores on aptitude tests than volunteers. Quote: “The draftees’ higher level of education and intelligence, middle-class background, and maturity contributed to their superior performance as soldiers.”

It doesn’t sound to me like the draft was some insidious instrument of the powerful aimed straight at the heart of the poor and minorities. But please post factual information refuting this view. (But please spare me the anecdotal “evidence”.)

**

According to this site:

www.search.biography.com/print_record.pl?id=23538

George Hamilton was born in 1939. This would make him 25 years old in 1964 when the draft really got rolling. And if he lived in a mansion at the time, it is probably because he had already made 12 movies by the end of 1963. Cite: imdb

**

Not at all. I’d just like to see evidence on the specific points that I have addressed rather than opinions.

Ron

**
Yes, there is, and all of it bad.

On these matters, I’m pretty pragmatic. The data on communism shows that it does reduce (but not elminate) inequality. However, it’s lousy at generating wealth. Capitalism actually encourages inequality but is simply super at generating wealth. The fact is that most poor people in Western capitalist countries are economically better off than they would have been in communist countries. You say,

**
I’m afraid you have no conception of what poverty means. You’re sitting in front of a computer, drinking quality beer and eating organic vegetables. How can you possibly complain about economic devastation? Your “poverty” would be unimaginable wealth to the vast majority of people living in, say, eastern Europe or Russia, even at communism’s highpoint. It is true that you may be poor relative to the rich who live around you, e.g. Bill Gates. But you aren’t poor in any absolute sense.

The problem I have with an intellectual discussion on fine-tuning communism is that it’s a little bit like having a discussion on fine tuning the ether theory of light. The theory just doesn’t work. Logic suggests, therefore, that we let it go and concentrate our energy on something else rather than trying to figure out some possible set of unlikely conditions where, maybe, it could, possibly, function.

Found it. not my paper, which I wish I could find. but some fragments of my notes, which will work well enough. first off, the book I am referring to is called “Fighting Two Fronts,” by James Westheider, NYU press 1997. I used that as well as Appy’s “Working Class War” and Wallace Terry’s “Bloods” as my primary cites for the paper.

First, I’d like to reinforce that I don’t believe there was a conspiracy by the US government to kill black people/poor people. Instituitional and personal racism had to do with what I am going to spout out below. It happened that way, despite the absence of a large scale conspiracy theory (which many people often accuse me of believing in).

Anyways, to start with the institutional racism:
College was one of the most effective ways to dodge the draft through an educational exemption. Black people were far less likely to attend college than white people, partly because of the discrepancy in educational quality between largely white and largely black high schools. Partly because of economic level. Since the facts and figures come with the latter, lets go with that:

-In 1965 the median income for the average white family was $8, 274 per year. For the average black family, it was $5,141. Only 1 in 5 black families earned more than $10,000 a year. 1/3 of all blacks were on or below the poverty line (Westheider).
-And Appy noted that “youth from families earning $7,500 to $10,000 a year were two and a half times more likely to attend college than those from families earning under $5,000.”

Since students who had the educational level but not the money to attend college, going to school part-time and working was the most popular option. But the college exemption only applied to full time students.

Now lets go to the personal racism. Local draft boards were overwhelmingly white, conservative, and veteran (of WWII and Korea mostly).
In 1967 there were only 278 blacks sitting on local draft boards out of 17, 123 board members nationwide. In 7 southern states every local board was all white. While I had no idea that George Hamilton was as old as he was at the time, I did find the page number of the cite in Westheiders book: pg. 25. I’m sure you can find that easily if you care to dispute it. He was granted an economic hardship exemption despite the fact that him and his mother lived in a “modest mansion.” So what if he was an actor and had done several movies, the point is that economic exemptions are meant for people who are poor.

Furthermore, the draft was often used to pick out civil rights activists, especially in the south. (Westheider). In many states African Americans were required to rip off a corner of their draft form so that they could be more easily identified.
All in all, blacks had a 30% chance of being drafted and whites had an 18% chance of being drafted. 64% of eligible blacks (whose draft card came up) were drafted compared to 33% for whites. (p. 35 of Westheider’s book)

It didn’t end in the draft, either. Black soldiers were put into combat in higher proportions than white soldiers. Black soldiers comprised of 20% of combat infantry in 1968, and 31% in 1969. They had a very noticeable absence from the National Guard, which rarely saw combat.
Why? In part because of AFQ tests- or military intelligence tests. The tests classified recruits into 5 categories. The top 2 categories basically got to choose what field they entered into. The bottom category was relegated to combat and supply duties. In 1965-66, 40% of African Americans who took the AFQ tests fell into the lowest category. Again, this relates to their lack of educational opportunities and the fact that AFQ tests were culturally biased.

Project 100,000. Of the 247,000 men drafted in this program, 41% were black, 37% were in combat. Project 100,000 troops were 3x more likely to see combat and 2.5x more likely to die in combat than the Armed Forces as a whole.

As a whole blacks comprised 9.3% of active duty soldiers, but had 7, 241 casualties- roughly 12.6%. That is a 3% higher death rate than the overall death rate.
And, Westheider argues, this number is low because the military took painstaking measures to reduce the # of black casualties later in the war (1970-71). This was due to the high amount of criticism the army recieved by the black press and high profile leaders such as MLK (before he died).
If you go back to 1965, black soldiers comprised 25% of the combat deaths eventhough they were only 12% of the overall combat troops.

And it does not stop there. Black soldiers were also dishonorably discharged at much higher rates than white soldiers. In 1970 blacks recieved 18% of less-than-honorable discharges given that year, and 26% of dishonorable discharges. In the Navy it was even worse. Eventhough blacks only comprised of 6% of enlisted men, they recieved 17% of dishonorable discharges that year.

Read that book if you are interested in the subject. I only scratched the surface of facts and figures given in the book. At the very least you will have plenty of fodder to criticize if you have the opportunity. Hopefully, though, you will concede and admit that black soldiers died in disproportionate numbers, as well as the poor.

thanks for pressuring me into finding these notes
i will sleep well tonight.

colin

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Truth Seeker *


**
I’m afraid you have no conception of what poverty means. You’re sitting in front of a computer, drinking quality beer and eating organic vegetables. How can you possibly complain about economic devastation? Your “poverty” would be unimaginable wealth to the vast majority of people living in, say, eastern Europe or Russia, even at communism’s highpoint. It is true that you may be poor relative to the rich who live around you, e.g. Bill Gates. But you aren’t poor in any absolute sense.****

[QUOTE]

Exactly my point. I grew up in an upper middle class, largely white suburb. I had the opportunity to go to 3 different great universities. And still, it is hard for me to do all the things I want to do, financially speaking. This week, for example, due to some unforseen “costs,” I not only have to limit my beer consumption to 2 per night (of cheap American schwill- ICEHOUSE), but have also had to limit myself to one meal a day. I can only imagine how bad it is for the vast majority of people who had a much poorer upbringing than I. And I am working 50+ hours a week at two jobs that pay relatively well (for a recent college grad). I have it pretty well, and it sucks.

So you can intellectualize all you want. You can cite the Soviet Bloc and pretend that it is plenty of evidence for you to wholeheartedly support capitalism. Without intellectualizing, I can tell you- it is not right that so many people live this way. Chained to jobs they don’t enjoy. Struggling to simply ‘get by’ financially. You can give me all of your best reasons and it will never change my mind, until of course you come up with something that will ensure that everyone’s basic needs are taken care of. If you can find that in capitalism, well then shit I’ll switch. Until then…

**

A bit of an unfair comparison, don’t you think? Comparing something that is physically impossible scientifically and something that is ideological/philosophical in nature and has been given maybe 50 chances in all of modern history to work. (half-assed chances in many instances I might add- as I’ve outlined communism is usually violently crippled by outsiders before it can even have a chance to work).

If you are truly truth seeking, I’d suggest keeping some of those avenues that you quickly closed off open for a while longer- on this issue atleast. But-hey, only my opinion. My username is Colinito and I would never eat a part of an animal, especially the toes.

colin

I think not.

Let’s take a closer look at some of your numbers. (I’m going to forbear giving sites for each of the following numbers, but any you desire are available.)(I’m also going to concentrate on the racial aspect here, since your source doesn’t seem to say much about the economic aspect except insofar as blacks tended to be poor in the sixties, if that isn’t too blanket a statement.)

**

My own numbers are: 157,000 drafted; 200,000 enlisted; 2,100 KIA. But for the sake of argument, let’s accept your numbers as correct. There were 46,400 KIA in VN (58,000 dead less 11,600 non-combat deaths) out of 2,800,000 total military. This means that the chances of becoming KIA were 1.66%. 2.5 X 1.66% = 4.15%, and 4.15% of 247,000 gives 10,250 KIA according to your book (a lot higher than 2,100!).

Total black KIA = 5,711 (7,241 total less 1,530 black non-combat deaths). Even if every single one of those 5,711 deaths was a Project 100,000 soldier, this would still leave 4,539 whites as Project 100,000 KIA. This would indicate that 5.6% of blacks and 3.1% of whites in the project were killed.

But this leaves us with a residue of 36,150 KIA, all of whom are white. (Actually about 1.5% would be “other”).

Of course, it’s ridiculous to assume that every black KIA was a Project 100,000 KIA. But for every fraction of a percentage point that you lower the black KIA you are going to have to raise the white KIA. If you aren’t careful, you could end up with a higher percentage of whites than blacks being killed.

In fact, lets try a fun experiment using your numbers. (Note that I am using your number that blacks made up 9.3% of the total military; see below.)

9.3% of 2.8 million total military equals 260,000 blacks in the military of whom 101,000 are Project 100,000 members and 159,000 are non-project. Assuming that black project soldiers were 2.5x as likely to be killed in action as non-project members, we get 3,500 black project members killed. This means that 3.5% of the black project members were KIA.

But this leaves us with 6,750 white deaths or 4.6% of the white project members.

**

Are you sure that you like these numbers? 9.3% of the total military is the lowest estimate that I have ever seen for black participation. Do you realize that, given that blacks made up 13.5% of the draft age male population at that time, this would mean that the average white was 45% more likely to end up in the military than the average black. But hey……whatever you say.

Another thing, assuming that your numbers are correct; 7,241 black dead/260,000 black total gives a death rate of 2.8%. The overall death rate would be 58,000/2.8 million or 2.1%. That is not a 3% difference.

**

You do realize that you are arguing that the military purposely conspired to sacrifice white soldiers in order to protect blacks, don’t you? I must admit that I haven’t run across this argument before.

**

This doesn’t really have much bearing on the question at hand. I suspect that the total number of persons given dishonorable discharges is too low to have much effect on the statistics. Besides, we can probably agree that people given dishonorable discharges did not end up becoming KIA.

But it sounds like an interesting book. I’m glad you were able to find it. Unfortunately this means that I have to drop by the library tomorrow and pay all my overdue fines.

Ron

I’m intrigued to see that you list “chained to a job you don’t enjoy” as one of the problems of capitalism. In the communism you propose (in which each person would somehow be a self-reliant master of all skills and knowledge) potentially everyone would be forced to do a job they don’t enjoy, for the good of all. And, everyone would be forced to use inexpertly made goods and sub-par services. At best this is a “misery loves company” compromise.

By the way, you are aware that someone else before you had had the idea of eliminating cities and returning to the Agrarian communist state. His name was Pol Pot, and he killed almost 3 million of his own people to achieve this goal (including all intellectuals, suspected intellectuals, and people with glasses). How would you propose to break up the city of Chicago, and send its people out to work in collective farms, except by force?

The one hallmark of sucessful communal groups, such as the Amana colony in Iowa, or Kibbutzim in Israel, (note how neither can be considered an viable state, but instead exists within a stable capitalist state) is that they produce items of value ie, create wealth. Without being able to create wealth (value) there is nothing to distribute. General poverty ensues. Workers see no point in producing. Quality declines. Shortages are endemic. A lower quality of life becomes apparent compared to similarly industrialized countries. And a political system collapses (in the words of P.J. O’Rourke) “Because no one wants to wear Bulgarian shoes.”

The Amana colony is an interesting example because it disbanded by common consent, not because of economic collapse. Although the society provided food, shelter, care and community, most people – even those who had lived in it all their lives – preferred to live independently of these social benefits starting 1932, what the community calls “The Great Change.” From that point forward Amanans shared ONLY their economic interests in the Amana profit-sharing corporation, however all communal living functions were disbanded.

While I’m no communist (as colinito has discovered), I have to object to this particular line of criticism. Other systems have caused devestation, brainwashing is hardly limited to the left, and I imagine that a few Nigerians would love to have a chat with you about how bad government combined with capitalism can wreak havok as much as bad government combined with communism.

Hell, you want to talk brainwashing? The whole Hutu/Tutsi thing was a colonial invention. That invention caused a gruesome genocidal massacre (that proved that you didn’t need Nazi death camps to attempt to eliminate a race, just a whole lot of machetes, time, and patience). Colonialism was a variation of capitalism. Therefore, capitalism was responsible for the Rwanda massacre.

At least, by this logic.

Besides, the system-as-implemented of communism has about as much to do with the theoretical system as capitalism-as-implemented has to do with theoretical “free markets”. Both got changed by the necessities of running a country and the beliefs and ideologies of those that ran them. The problem is that the sort of totalitarianism that “communists” tend to create doesn’t have mechanisms to correct this problem or at least to limit it. Liberal democracy does.

**

AFAIK, Marx argued that these changes needed to happen through revolution… attempts to change “within the system” were doomed. Social Democracy also doesn’t necessarily have to be marxian; J.S. Mill’s version of Liberalism can also lead to a social democratic system, and isn’t as dependent on Marxist economics and Marxian dialectics as a Marxian system would be.

The problem, as I said earlier, is not that Marxism cannot evolve as a system of philosphy. The problem is that it IS NOT a system of philosophy, at least not just a system of philosophy. Marx started as a philosopher (with the alienation of labour stuff) but ended as a political economist, and his best known and most influential work (as well as the bases of what we’d call Marxism today) is based on Marxian political economics. Such a system disagress on such a profound level with neo-classical economics that they can barely talk to each other, and that would imply philisophical differences, but one shouldn’t forget that Marx argued that his system was an accurate portrayal of the Real World and not just a way of looking at the world. He spent a good portion of The German Ideology ranting about this sort of philisophical wankery. In his own way, he was as objectivist as Rand. This objectivity is foundational to the paradigm; lose it, and you’ve moved outside the paradigm entirely.

The point, anyway, is that every paradigm rests on some arguments about how the world works. Disproving (or attempting to disprove) these basic arguments can undercut the entire paradigm and anything built atop it. What these basic arguments were and their problems was the basis for that criticism Mister E mentioned earlier. Disprove class, or dialectics, or materialism, and the pillars that Marxism stand on crumble. No matter how large the body of work that stands atop those pillars, they will fall too. And since Marxism is inherently objectivist, it can’t get around such attacks by saying “that’s just your point of view”. It must address them.

First: you’re mixing up theories of class here. Class as a social position (rich, middle, working, poor) is pretty damned obvious, if open to interpretation. Class as a social relation (bourgeosie vs. proletariat), the Marxian kind, is based upon the labour theory of value, which basically argues that capitalists rip off workers’ surplus labour; it divides society between the workers and the capitalist parasites. Not the same thing at all.

Now: The Marxian analytical toolset is built on a central concept: Marxian political economy. That, in turn, is built upon several key concepts, such as the labour theory of value, the theory of dialectics, and historical materialism. Deny those concepts (as modern economics does) and Marxian political economy ceases to be; without Marxian political economy, the insights of Marxian criticism are suspect. Again, since Marxism is inherently objectivistic, there is no “P.O.V.” here… either it portrays the world as it really exists, or it falls apart in an epistomelogical heap.

Besides, Marxism isn’t necessary; there are plenty of ways to criticise laissez faire capitalism and the inequalities and crises it creates within the neo-classical paradigm without resorting to Marxian political economy. You may have heard of this guy named Keynes…

Actualy those are fairly benign as Marx (as opposed to Lenin, Stalin and Plekhanov) conceived of them. Class consciousness is knowledge that your most important (and only real) identity is class, and a dictatorship of the proletariat isn’t dictatorship as we know it, but more akin to radical democracy akin to Rousseau’s “general will” The problem, of course, is that dictatorships of the proletariat in the real 20th century experience have been dictatorship exactly as we know it.

Actually, I may have messed that up there… was class consciousness original to Marx, or was it part of Gramsci’s theories of hegemony?