Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
After I got out of the Army, I became involved in the anti-war movement as well as the other main causes of the time, women’s rights and racial equality. We’d go out and do street theater, we’d march, we printed broadsides that I cringe to remember and thankfully have no copy of, we spoke before groups, we did whatever we thought might help. We would go out to protest the war and agitate for a wide range of ideals at any opportunity. During one of these protests back in 1968 some friends and I kidnapped Ronald Reagan at UCSC and held him captive for about two hours.
Outdoor amphitheater, University of California, Santa Cruz
Man, we were idiots. Our hearts were in the right place, but man, we were idiots, so let me be clear about this story. I would never do this again. It was disrespectful to Governor Reagan, big time stupid, criminal, and wrong. Hey, I was so dumb back then, I actually thought that Karl Marx was one of the good guys, and you can’t get much dumber than that. Today I hold that by way of Lenin and Stalin and Mao and Ho and Castro and a host of franchised Mini-Marx wholesale and retail killing enterprises around the world, Karl Marx is the one man in modern history whose ideas caused the most human death and suffering … so as you see, today I’m not the same dumb young man in my story. Still a fool, to be sure … but an old fool, not the young fool I was then.
Anyhow, that precis doesn’t mention a few things, actually more than a few, so let me add to the history of the time. This is a story about a young man who was outsmarted by Ronald Reagan.
Ronald Reagan at that time was the Governor of California. The Governor also sits on the Board of Regents of the University of California, with dozens of campuses. The newest of these at the time was UCSC, the University of California at Santa Cruz. And he’d come to UCSC for the annual meeting of the Board.
I tried to go to college at UCSC, I really did. I registered and paid my fees. I was commercial fishing at the time, lampara netting with an old Sicilian fisherman in a lovely old 27′ (5m) wooden Monterrey boat, for pompano and other fish. I loved the work, the fishing, the sea life, and I wanted more than just that. I wanted to study marine biology, I was fascinated by the strange creatures we’d catch at times, moonfish and ocean sturgeon and threshers sharks with huge long tails. I wanted to learn more about them, so I applied and got accepted at UCSC, and waited for the schedule of classes.
The news was nothing but bad. The Intro to Marine Biology 101 class, along with a couple of other marine classes that would have interested me, were at 8 AM. Not a problem normally … but lampara netting is done only in the darkness. So my normal schedule was, I went to work at dusk, and got off work around four or five in the morning, sometimes six, collapsed into bed exhausted, and slept ’til around noon … I could have handled a class at eleven, but eight was out of the question. I’d figured there’d be one afternoon marine biology class, but no.
So I continued to fishing until the end of the season. By then it was halfway through the semester, so after the season when I had time I went back up the hill to the lovely campus, and I officially dropped out of school, and mentally said goodbye to my dreams of hanging out on the campus with the college babes … ah, well.
Of course, I still needed money. With no fishing, I went down and I signed up with the Laborers and Hod Carriers Union. I found out that a hod was what a young strong guy uses to carry mortar to the guys laying bricks. But I never did that work. They called us up by number, you had to be in the hiring hall, longest in the hall hired first. So I sat in the hall every morning for an hour or so for about three days, and then my number was called … and they sent me right back up the hill to UCSC, to work for the crew constructing the gorgeous outdoor amphitheater built into the hillside. I was put to work digging the ditches into the hillside for logs that form the amphitheater bench seats you see in the picture above.
So there I was, laboring away on the Amphitheater, practicing my shovel moves in the hot sun on the first day, and I thought “Man, I dropped out of college three days ago, and here I am digging ditches. My beloved Dad warned me that would happen … but dang, I had no idea it would happen so fast!”
Anyhow, I still got to see the college babes on my lunch hour. And even better, now I wasn’t some immature college kid. Despite being only three days older than before, suddenly in their eyes I was mysteriously transmuted into the noble full-grown Union workingman, what better? … hey, like I said, I was young and dumb.
I do find it humorous, though, that despite the fact I never did get to attend UCSC … I helped build it.
Anyhow, I started to tell the story of when Ronald Reagan came to Santa Cruz for the meeting of the Board of Regents, and somehow I always end up on some other trail in the forest of life’s stories, there’s more forks than there are roads and I get lost easily—but regarding Reagan, there were lots of contentious issues in front of the Board of Regents at that meeting: free speech, who could speak when and where, what facilities could be used for whose meetings, would the University boycott grapes, a whole host of stuff.
A newspaper article from around then refreshes my memory of the events.
Wednesday’s protests echoed a 1968 visit to the campus by then- governor Ronald Reagan, who came to meet with UC regents. For three days, university students blocked buses, heckled speakers and held rallies to protest a decision to restrict Black Panther Eldridge Cleaver from speaking on university campuses. Protesters also demanded that the new College 7 be named in honor of Malcolm X, and that the United Farm Workers-sponsored grape boycott be respected in university dining halls.
After the Regents had met, Reagan came out from the meeting room and strode to the podium to address the assembled students, teachers, and general public. Some friends and I were sitting in the front row. I was maybe ten feet from Reagan. I remember being amazed at the amount of makeup he was wearing, although I shouldn’t have been. He’d been an actor, he knew the importance of appearances when making public appearances.
He started in speaking, and there wasn’t a sliver of good news in it as far as his listeners were concerned. As he announced decision after decision, every single one of them went against what the students wanted. And finally, at some point, he announced some really unpopular decision of the Board, I can’t remember what, but people were furious. The front couple of rows, sadly including myself, stood up and started yelling and screaming at him.
Looking back on it, I suspect that everything would have been fine if he had just stood his ground. My guess is we would have yelled, but you can only yell for so long. But he didn’t stand there. I think he was shocked when the front couple rows erupted in screams right in his face, he realized that despite the presence of some media he was unprotected and only ten feet from an outraged crowd … and he turned and ran.
He was scared, and I don’t blame him for that, in his shoes I’d likely have made the same mistake and run myself. But running from a crowd in that mood, well, that’s a tactical error. And when he turned and ran, what happened is just what you’d expect—stupidly and inexcusably, a dozen or so of us vaulted to the stage and took off in pursuit, right at his heels. We chased him down a corridor, prevented him from getting out by a side door, pressed him around into another corridor, and he went into the first open room he could find. We barricaded the door. It was the only door. We had him trapped, imprisoned, no way out. Of course, he’d locked the door as well, so we’d have to break it down, but we had no plan to do that.
In fact we had no plan at all, we were surprised as he was at this unexpected turn of events. We had the Governor of California trapped in a room, unable to get out, and we had no idea at all what to do with him or how to do it if we could figure it out.
We held him prisoner in that room at UCSC for a couple of hours, with some of my friends and I in the forefront … and here’s the crazy part. I think in a legal sense that those occurrences would absolutely qualify as the kidnapping (forcing someone to go somewhere against their will) and false imprisonment of a sitting California Governor … like I said, young and stupid.
How curious. Here, where I least expect it, I’m in a quandary. See, the Statute of Limitations ran out long, long ago on any illegal stuff I might have done as a young man. So I figured, I can talk about anything, ’cause nothing I did was serious, and you can’t be charged for stuff that long ago. But here, I’m saying that I was one of the “ringleaders” if you will in the commission of two serious felonies, the kidnapping and temporary imprisonment of the Governor of California. If guys with guns had done it, they’d have been thrown in the slammer immediately. Is there a statute of limitation on kidnapping, whether of the Governor or someone else?
But of course in reality, it wasn’t kidnapping, it was college students and other young eedjits making fools of ourselves, so after a couple hours the cops showed up. We were surprised they arrived that fast, the Santa Cruz cops weren’t usually that quick off the mark. They came in a flying wedge and drove us away from the door. They formed a corridor, shoulder to shoulder. Then, when all was ready, the Chancellor of UCSC walked slowly up the corridor of armed men, and knocked on the door of the room Reagan was in.
Knocked. That should have given us a clue.
After a few seconds, Reagan answered the door warmly. He looked immaculate, every hair in place. He came out, waved and smiled to the cameras. He was still wearing the thick makeup he’d put on for the speech, I was still close, I could see it. We were shouting a variety of inane contemporary slogans. He shook hands with the Chancellor solemnly, showed no surprise at the lines of police, it was as if Reagan and the Chancellor had just signed a momentous agreement and were memorializing for the photographers. He walked sedately and proudly between the walls of cops to a limousine and disappeared.
We thought we had won. We patted each other on the backs and congratulated ourselves on our dash and brilliance. But when we got home and talked to our friends, we found out that the old man had outfoxed us completely, that instead of fame we reaped ignominy … appropriate, I suppose. Here was our mistake.
We were so busy congratulating ourselves that we forgot that there was a phone in the prisoners cell …
And seeing that phone, Ronald Reagan, the Great Communicator, the ex-radio announcer, didn’t hesitate. He picked up the phone and called up the cops, explained the situation, got them moving. Then came his first master stroke … he called up the local radio station.
He knew they’d put him on the air live, he was the Governor after all, and they did, and he put his golden tones to work. Oh, to hear his story, he was reporting from the front lines in the culture wars, he was the beleaguered hero of the common man, fighting against the crazed communist hordes besieging his door like some movie plot he’d acted in. He mixed in the War, the domino theory, the yellow peril, folksy tales, from what I heard it was a masterpiece.
Not only that, but you remember the knock on the door when they took him out?
His idea … he was in communication by phone with the leader of the cops making the assault, his master’s touch was everywhere evident in how the situation ended. He arranged to be greeted by the Chancellor’s knock, he waited a few seconds before answering the door even though I’m sure he was already standing right there when the knock came, he’d staged and scripted the handshake and every part of the departure scene for maximum effect. Brilliant, I can only bow my head in admiration. Well played, that man.
But I didn’t hear his radio talk, of course, because I was on guard in front of his cell door, lost I’m sure in monstrously self-righteous satisfaction. His audience loved it, though, that became one more part of the official Reagan legend, he turned defeat into victory. He walked out of his temporary cell like a warrior monk leaving his place of meditation before battle, perfectly coiffed, polishing his halo and buffing his nails.
And good on him, I say at this advanced stage of my youth. Although I’m not a huge fan of Reagan’s, I’ve ended up liking and respecting many things about him, and I can laugh at a masterful trick like his even when it’s played on me.
In any case, when I got concerned, I looked up the law. I found out that as I had feared, in California there’s no Statute of Limitations on kidnapping the Governor or anyone else. Kidnapping is punishable by life imprisonment, and the relevant statute reads:
799. Prosecution for an offense punishable by death or by imprisonment in the state prison for life or for life without the possibility of parole, or for the embezzlement of public money, may be commenced at any time.
So in theory, I could still be indicted. Ah, well. I started out to tell the truth, can’t stop now, and I doubt greatly if I’ll be charged for kidnapping Reagan at this late date. And regarding the dangers, I can’t live like that. I won’t base my life on fear. The world is a wild and crazy and dangerous place, it’s true. And as I have more reason than most to know, some of the good folks out there are more than a few bubbles out of plumb. But I can’t live my life based on being scared that someone is going to come after me, official or unofficial.
I studied the martial art called Aikido off and on for some years, under a number of teachers. It’s an amazing path, after years of training I’m only a beginner. Ai-Ki-Do means the martial path (do) of harmony (ai) with “ki”, the essential energy of life.
In martial arts like Aikido, a teacher is called a “sensei”, a Japanese word meaning roughly “master”. When I studied Aikido at the Honolulu dojo, one of my senseis was an old Japanese man, in his seventies, a wonderful teacher. He said something like:
You think that because you know Aikido and your ki [energy] is strong, you can win the fight. This is wrong understanding. What if you are walking across the Golden Gate Bridge and it collapses?
What good is your ki then?
I will tell you how the Aikido master wins the fight. When the fight breaks out on Second Street, the master is walking down Ninth Street. When the Golden Gate Bridge collapses, the master is watching from the shore.
So me, I don’t hide my identity when I write, I talk about what I’ve done and the stupid mistakes I’ve made. I make no effort to conceal myself. If Old Nick wants to find me, he knows where I am. I just keep walking out in the sunshine, in plain view, with a tremendous amount of likely foolish and ultimately unjustifiable faith that I’m walking down Ninth Street …
My regards to all, and truly, kids, don’t try this at home. My best advice is never kidnap a sitting Governor of California, or any other state for that matter, it doesn’t look good on your resume … especially a Governor who is as handsome, media-savvy, persuasive, and inventive as Ronald Reagan was in his prime. Big mistake. I take my hat off to the man, I disagreed with him on many things, but he was an American through and through. And he sure bested me in Santa Cruz, where the final score was Reagan 1, … and Willis lost.
w.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
FauxScienceSlayer says:
March 11, 2013 at 2:37 pm
Again I say, this thread is not about money or banking. Please take it elsewhere. Your protest that it is important is meaningless. It may well be, I’m not saying it isn’t important … but it still belongs elsewhere, not here.
Thanks,
w.
Willis – I looked up your “No True Scotsman” phrase.
After more than a half-century in Scotland that was new to me!
Thanks for that but I’ve got a wee gripe with you that I need to get off my chest.
I recently parted with £200 sterling (2400 Scottish pounds unadjusted as at 1707 prices) to buy a Kindle Fire but am still waiting to purchase your memoirs in an e-book format.
Could you give us a clue as to when this will be available and at what cost so that I can save up a sufficiency of bawbees?
Thanking you in anticipation.
I remember reading once upon a time in the corridors of an Alyeska camp in Alaska: ” Old age and deceit will always triumph over youth and skill”
Thank you again for your engaging story.
“It is amusing how so many Americans still confuse Marx with Lenin.”
It’s amazing how obtuse that statement is.
Perhaps one of you left-wing geniuses can point us to a pure Marxist politician who ruled in the 20th century, one that Marx would have wholly embraced. I won’t hold my breath.
My impression of Marx, having read him some time ago and knowing something of his life, is that he would have been more murderous as a dictator than any of those who claimed to be his ideological heirs.
fobdangerclose says:
March 11, 2013 at 1:20 pm
Fob, I’m sorry I didn’t have my cell phone with me or I’d have taken a video of the whole thing … but then it was 1968.
I must say, though, that’s the politest way someone has said I might be lying in a while. You may not have had much experience with guys like me, honest men who view lying and exaggeration as abominations. I tell the truth as best I know it. The description above is what I observed. Sorry it doesn’t fit your worldview, and I don’t have any pictures of that or most things in my life, but that’s what I did and what I saw.
Because there’s only one auto in “autobiography”? … although the hero in this story was Reagan.
I said quite clearly that in his place I would have run as well. I attached no blame of any kind to his action.
You will not find one word in my writing that in any way disses those who served in Vietnam. There were no right answers, no bloodless paths, no moral options in that war. Everyone chose from a list of bad possibilities.
I never went to Vietnam, but I saw far too much of the cost that war exacted. Go spend six months in an Army nuthouse at the height of a war like that … people missing limbs, missing minds, missing memories, missing their innocence, missing the ability to speak, missing those who died that they could not or did not save.
I could never say a word against men and women who went to Vietnam, no matter what the outcome was in their particular case. The only human response to that depth and intensity of suffering is compassion for those who went to fight.
I’ve noticed that about your opinion. It’s not the heat … it’s the humility.
Fob, I’m not sure what your beef is with me here. As I said above, I’m talking about the actions of a young fool. It’s an interesting story about an interesting time. It doesn’t contain any secret messages or coded urgings. It’s a story about how I got my butt kicked by Ronald Reagan, not a referendum on the Vietnam War. In fact, the issues that faced Reagan and the University Regents, the bones of contention in the confrontation at Santa Cruz, had nothing to do with the Vietnam War at all.
What is your objection to the story?
w.
Alexander Feht says:
March 11, 2013 at 1:06 pm
Sorry, I realized I hadn’t answered your question.
If we look at the history of all those national leaders who have identified themselves as Marxists, start with Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Ho, Castro, and go on from there … looking at all of them a reasonable man would have to say the most fundamental, defining principle common to each and every one of those folks who said they were Marxists was:
1. Ruthlessly assassinate, exterminate, and suppress any individual or entire class of people who might be even the slightest opposition to you.
Now, I suspect you may be thinking about some other tribe of Marxists who are sweet, nice, kind folks … and they likely have a different fundamental defining principle.
But for the overwhelming majority of world leaders who called themselves Marxists, Principle #1 above is the one ring to bind them …
w.
Alexander Feht, is this guy a Marxist? Or is he not a true Marxist, as in no true Marxist would murder thousands of Cubans …
w.
Willis, you do also write songs about your adventures don’t you? …………or only stories?
Dang, if you’d been arrested or shot you’d be famous now plus Neil Young would’ve written a song about it.
cn
Alexander Fehr writes: “What is the most fundamental, defining principle of Marxism? It is that all means of production (tools, factories, etc.), as well as all results of production, must belong to those who produce — that is, to workers themselves. Now, name a single so called “socialist,” “communist,” or “Marxist” country where this was true. Can’t? Case closed.
Willis writes in answer to Alexander’s question: “. . . looking at all of them a reasonable man would have to say the most fundamental, defining principle common to each and every one of those folks who said they were Marxists was: 1. Ruthlessly assassinate, exterminate, and suppress any individual or entire class of people who might be even the slightest opposition to you.
I think Alexander is right although not in a way he thinks. The defining principle and goal of Marxism was the elimination of capitalism by any means necessary which is what he is describing. Willis accurately describes the “means” that were deployed to that end.
The inherent contradiction in Marxism is found in Alexander’s definition. He claims that no country ever succeeded in implementing the defining principle of Marxism, therefore none of them were Marxist, which is absurd. The implementation of Marxism was impossible without all the murder and mayhem because it was a fundamentally flawed economic theory. It required extraordinarily coercive measures because it violated the basic laws of nature, i.e. that men need to be free to develop, grow, improve on their own before they can enter into a social contract with other men. They need to own something, have something to offer and to know that what they do own cannot arbitrarily be taken from them by those in power. Food, shelter and clothing are the basic necessities of life. Marxist were saying that you don’t have the right to own those things and, for the greater good, the state can prevent you from owning them if it wishes or control the amount you can own.
One of the most striking things I remember reading about the Bolshevik Revolution was that in its early phase people were being summarily executed for selling bread in the street.
[Marx] promoted the genocidal, hateful ideas that Stalin, Hitler and Mao carried out.
To don’t be a denier of totalitarianism and mass killing and it’s source.
It’s not millions, Willis, it’s probably well over a hundred million dead by Marxist frauds.
It’s time to tell the truth about Marx and Engels.
Don’t miss the full length film, “The Soviet Story”.
KARL MARX: “Racial Trash Will Have to Be Destroyed”
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2686291/posts
Did I say Mark? I meant Marx, sorry.
@Willis; I doubt that you have anything to fear about a Kidnaping that never happened. Great story about how your “well laid plan” was foiled by the quick thinking Gipper. 😉
Communism was not invented by Carl Marx. Humans have been trying that foolishness as long as they have existed, always the same result, The Pigs take over. Some people believe that they deserve to consume more then they produce and those that produce must share with those that don’t, by force if necessary. Communism sounds wonderful to those that are young and in college as they feel that they are the Elite that deserve to be supported as they will do great things in the future. Those that create real wealth know better and resent being forced to support the layabouts. Marxism is a political system to enforce communism on all. Its basic premise is that there can be no exceptions or it can not work.Everyone must submit. Sounds like a religion to me. pg
Re: Defenders of the socialist cause.
The average human being will work his or her butt off to earn a big-screen TV. They will not do it to earn “the people” a new dump-truck. That is why no communist country ever emerged from “third world” status without embracing consumer-driven, free market economics with all its blemishes, abuses and excesses. You can count Russia, China and the Eastern Block among those that did so. You can look to Cuba and North Korea for examples of those that did not.
It is what it is, and for all its theoretical nobility, altruism is a sucker’s bet.
CH
Hey, it ain’t that bad
🙂
Marxism is a system designed for saints: capitalism, for sinners. Mister Eschenbach will remember a fellow by the name of Kissinger, I’d bet. He was once thought to be “the smartest man in the world.” And yet when it came to the permanence of the Soviet Union, he and everyone else in DC was outsmarted by, in the words of historian Robert Kaplan “the scholar and former head of the State Department’s policy-planning staff George Kennan, the Harvard historian Richard Pipes, the British scholar and journalist Bernard Levin, and the Eureka College graduate Ronald Reagan.” Getting outsmarted by Reagan puts one in good company.
Thanks, Willis. Another interesting story, full of humanity.
I used to have the same malady; youth. Now I share the same bliss; age.
A marxist-leninist destroyed my country, its very soul. To think I defended that position 45 years ago makes me feel very humble.
My work here is done.
Not too much more to add.
w
You made a choice back then, you wish to be absolved of that sin.
I and the others in the I-Corps of South Vietnam made another choice, the correct choice.
You are not absolved.
You inability to say, that the brave men who did chose to fight, made the choice of duty, honor and country binds you to your orginal sins.
You paint with words now, to paint over the sin and hide it, admit to the sin and go and sin no more.
fobdangerclose says:
March 12, 2013 at 1:19 pm
Fob, I truly admire your audacity. First you claim that there was a “correct choice” that every single swinging richard should have made almost a half century ago in a very complex moral situation that many, many people have described as the “wrong war, wrong place, wrong time”. To pretend that there is one and only one answer in such a situation is hubris of a very high, refined order …
Not satisfied with that, you set yourself up (who better, right?) as the arbiter of exactly what that “correct choice” was for everyone.
Next, you claim that not making the Official Fobdangerclose Required and Obviously The Only Possible Right Choice For Everyone For Vietnam was not just wrong, but a sin.
And in a final act of lese majeste against whatever God you might believe in, you claim that you, fobdangerclose, get to decide who is “absolved” from that sin …
Some anonymous internet popup gets to say who is absolved of their sins and who is not? I love the plan, the anonymous giver of absolution, that’s hilarious, I tell you, my friend, the audacity is astounding … but other than making me laugh at your ego, swollen so big it needs its own postal code, Here Lies Fobdangerclose, the Official Approver of Absolution … other than that, I fear your complaints don’t move me.
Every man had to come to his own conclusion about that war. My conclusion was that I didn’t want to take even the slightest part in raining flaming death on little girls … so sue me.
But I don’t ever say that going off to fight in the Vietnam War was a wrong choice. It wasn’t my choice, that’s all. You, like me, did what you thought was right, as did thousands of other who all took their own paths.
Now it’s time for you to notice that not everyone thinks that what you did was the only officially “correct choice”. For many of us, that would have been an unbearably incorrect choice … and again, that does not make your choice wrong.
We chose different paths almost a half century ago, my friend, and you don’t get to decide for the world what was the “correct choice” … let it go, let the Vietnam War go. I know I have …
w.
Poems of Our Climate says:
March 11, 2013 at 9:38 pm
[Marx] promoted the genocidal, hateful ideas that Stalin, Hitler and Mao carried out.
To don’t be a denier of totalitarianism and mass killing and it’s source.
It’s not millions, Willis, it’s probably well over a hundred million dead by Marxist frauds.
===========Communist Body Count
Scott Manning
December 4, 2006
The following estimates represent citizens killed or starved to death by their own Communist governments since 1918. These numbers do not include war dead. The governments are sorted by body count (highest to lowest).
All numbers are mid-estimates.
People’s Republic of China
Body Count: 73,237,000
1949-Present (57+ years and counting)
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
Body Count: 58,627,000
1922-1991 (69 years)
Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic
Body Count: 3,284,000
1918-1922 (4 years)
Democratic People’s Republic of Korea
Body Count: 3,163,000
1948-Present (58+ years and counting)
Cambodia
Body Count: 2,627,000
1975-1987 (12 years)
Democratic Republic of Afghanistan
Body Count: 1,750,000
1978-1992 (14 years)
Vietnam
Body Count: 1,670,000
1975-Present (30+ years and counting)
People’s Democratic Republic of Ethiopia
Body Count: 1,343,610
1974-1991 (17 years)
Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
Body Count: 1,072,000
1945-1992 (47 years)
Chinese Soviet Republic
Body Count: 700,000
1931-1934 (3 years)
People’s Republic of Mozambique
Body Count: 700,000
1975-1990 (15 years)
Socialist Republic of Romania
Body Count: 435,000
1947-1989 (42 years)
People’s Republic of Bulgaria
Body Count: 222,000
1946-1990 (44 years)
Mongolian People’s Republic
Body Count: 100,000
1924-1992 (68 years)
People’s Socialist Republic of Albania
Body Count: 100,000
1946-1991 (45 years)
Republic of Cuba
Body Count: 73,000
1961-Present (45+ years and counting)
German Democratic Republic
Body Count: 70,000
1949-1990 (41 years)
Socialist Republic of Czechoslovakia
Body Count: 65,000
1948-1990 (42 years)
Lao People’s Democratic Republic
Body Count: 56,000
1975-Present (31+ years and counting)
Hungarian People’s Republic
Body Count: 27,000
1949-1989 (40 years)
People’s Republic of Poland
Body Count: 22,000
1948-1989 (41 years)
People’s Democratic Republic of Yemen
Body Count: 1,000
1969-1990 (21 years)
Alexander Feht says:
March 11, 2013 at 11:04 am
Geezer is right.
Blaming Karl Marx for what happened in Russia, in China, etc., is like blaming Jesus Christ for the burning of Giordano Bruno and for other crimes of the Church.
As someone who studied Marx’s works through grade school and college, I can say with absolute certainty that Marx’s teaching were implemented as close to original as possible. The major difference between Marx and Soviet’s styles of communism was decision not to pursue global revolution, which was a necessary requirement for eternal bliss and happiness that communism would bring to people, at least according to Marx.
There are some people, like Trotsky and his followers who even now believe that Marx’s theory was subverted by Stalin and others and in reality communism is not a horrible murderous system that it is, but great and humanistic system designed to make life better for everyone.
They are, of course, totally deluded.
You can not implement Marx’s ideas without doing what USSR and others did.
Despite your claims, Swedish socialism is not Marxism, never was and never will be.
Mr. Eschenbach:
Add Hitler to your list of murderers whose ideas were rooted in Marx. Remember that the Nazis called themselves socialist – the National Sozialist Deutsche Arbeiter Partei. And remember also that the Nazi Party was foiunded by one Anton Drexler, six months before Hitler joined on German Army orders – and this Drexler was a doctrinasire Marxist who just happened to equate the Marxian bourgeois class enemy with the Jews, thereby providing the original ideological basis for Nazi anti-Semitism
Alexander Feht says:
March 11, 2013 at 1:06 pm
Anyone who applies a term “Marxist” to countries like Stalin’s Russia, Mao’s China, Chavez’ Venezuela, etc., should check the fundamentals first.
What is the most fundamental, defining principle of Marxism? It is that all means of production (tools, factories, etc.), as well as all results of production, must belong to those who produce — that is, to workers themselves. Now, name a single so called “socialist,” “communist,” or “Marxist” country where this was true. Can’t? Case closed.
What you describing is a utopia. It is not achievable. The countries like USSR were trying to get as close to that as possible though. It is all good to say that workers are the one controlling the means of production. In practice, this is only possible through state control of those things – and that is exactly how it went down. Virtually any means of productions were state-controlled. As little as possible of private ownership was allowed – personal belonging, clothes, maybe cars for very few.
I assume you are trotskyist, who believes if we only do exactly what Marx says, the world would have achieved communistic nirvana by now and everyone would be happy, productive selfless person working to betterment of society. Just as soon as we killed off anyone who disagreed with that worldview.
If it only wasn’t for those like Stalin, Mao, etc, that is. Funny how there are always someone who manages to screw up that ideal world… But whether its a Marx or Lenin or Stalin or Mao or Kim Jon Il, it always ends in blood.
It is kind of funny that someone who is political refugee from USSR to be a trotskyist, but surprisingly I meet few people like that here.
Lovely discussion about Marxism; if you like that, you might also like this:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/03/karl_marx_and_the_american_dream.html
Why is it relevant to climate change? Because lots of the CAGW workers are fellow travelers, comrade. The young idealists may not know that their favorite concepts have a history, and every concept no matter how pure has a dark side. A cause which is so noble that ignoble actions are justified. No shortage of history there. Not to mention that there is no universal agreement on those values. So many calls to action, so few calls for further thought.
Which brings me to my point. Which is that there is a history, which we have tried to forget, of a previous case of “nature is getting worse; we have to fix it”. Eugenics. Everyone knows about what the losing side did; few know about how popular those ideas were elsewhere (and few wish to remember).
Alexander Feht tries to pull off a shift by claiming mixed economies are Marxist.
Mixed economies appear to succeed because the relatively free part of them allows productivity.
Marx’ principles are well known, the USSR was a fairly complete implementation with predictable results – it couldn’t even feed its own people.
Marxism’s “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” is based on fixed pie economics and drive-to-the-bottom ethics. Its roots are in a view of humans as uncreative and untrustworthy, which comes from denying the effectiveness of the human mind for life. Since nothing is produced, anyone who has something must have stolen it from someone else.
Since Marxism denies the mind, there are no “individuals” as most people here know the term, only fodder for the collective.
(People may find Marxism contradictory – that’s not only evidence of its false nature, contradiction is actually praised in its “dialectic logic”. Like all irrational ideologies it has to lead to tyranny, since individuals have no value. Since anarchy does not work for long, someone always ends up ruling.
Marxism and many other sets of ideas are irrational – denying that humans can figure things out to live, evading reality. In contrast, those based on reality avoid contradiction – Aristotle’s “A is A” approach, for example.