Marxism's challenge - Overcoming the stigma of Stalin

Marxism's challenge - Overcoming the stigma of Stalin

By Ranting Panda, 31 December 2022

Communism and Socialism are often equated with the Soviet Union and China. While both these nations claimed to be Marxist, they were not operated in any way that Marx would have identified as aligning with his theories and propositions. 

Sure, there was a seizing of property, but Stalin missed the point of redistribution to meet the needs of all people. 'From each according to their ability, to each according to their need'. Stalin missed the point of workers having power over the means of production, of workers having power within government. Stalin operated a brutal totalitarian regime that stripped workers of what little they had and then exploited and persecuted them further. This was not Marxism. 

Marx and Engels stood for the working class. These days, most workers do not see themselves as part of a working class and generally see capitalism as their only hope to achieve wealth and meet their needs. Left wing groups have also moved away from working class struggle to identity politics, in which they will stand for certain social causes, such as environment, race, sex and gender. issues These causes are important and must be addressed, but ultimately they have fractured the left-wing into competing factions and diverted attention from the worker struggles identified by Marx. This plays into the hands of capitalism which thrives on left-wing disunity and has turned workers against the very solution that would end their exploitation, namely socialism. Capitalism has succeeded in this because they have been able to equate Marxism with Stalinism; its purges, severe exploitation, famines, pogroms, torture, disappearances, totalitarianism, lack of freedom of speech or thought, censorship, and so on. Each of these things is not what Marx stood for. They are contrary to Marxism, but they are what Stalin stood for in the name of Marxism. What worker in their right mind would want a revolution that replaced the relative freedoms of western democracy with a totalitarian Stalinist regime?

In 1949, China experienced the 'People's Revolution' which swept Mao Tse Tung to power. Chairman Mao claimed to be Marxist but fashioned himself on Stalin, including the use of purges, removal of freedoms, and a closed economy.

Marx did not advocate for closed economies. He understood that socialism would only succeed in an open internationalist environment with the cooperation of every nation. Marx advocated for socialism in all countries, not socialism in one country or in a centrally controlled government. Because of this, nationalism is anathema to Marxism, yet Stalin violently imposed centralism and nationalism, not internationalism. Stalin focused on socialism in one country through a closed economy and ensuring other socialist nations were merely satellites of Moscow. Hence, the so-called 'Iron Curtain' that imposed Soviet Union control over socialist nations in Europe.

Marx described a workers' revolution in which the working class would have control over the means of production and government. Marxism is the ultimate in democracy and freedom. It ensures people are treated fairly and equitably. Workers have a voice and have control. Stalin stripped workers of their voices and certainly did not give them control. Quite the opposite in fact. Anyone who dared challenge Stalin's power, politics or practices was liable to be tortured in Lubyanka or transported to the Gulags for years of harsh punishment and forced labour, often dying in the camps. 

Licenced from Shutterstock

The 1917 Russian Revolution was led by a triumvirate consisting of Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin and Leon Trotsky. Following the revolution, Lenin became the first leader of the new Russian socialist state, which was initially founded on the principals of Marxism-Leninism. It gave power to workers, removed Russia from the first world war, and gave equality to women. Lenin however, was not a well man and he died in 1924. Prior to his death, Lenin penned a letter stating that leadership of the Russian state should be passed to Trotsky. He specifically stated that it should not go to Stalin, because of Stalin's desire for power at all costs. Lenin knew that Stalin was a megalomaniac who was using Marxism for his own narcissistic benefit. Unfortunately, on Lenin's death, Stalin ensured the letter did not immediately see the light of day. Prior to Lenin's death, Stalin had begun positioning himself to weaken Trotsky's position within the government. On assuming power, Stalin proceeded to besmirch and ultimately exiled Trotsky. Even after Trotsky was forced out of the country, Stalin used him as a scapegoat to arrest anyone who appeared a threat to him or for any other political purpose. People who Stalin wanted to get rid of were often accused of being Trotskyists. Stalin's obsession with Trotsky resulted in show trials against Trotsky and Trotsky-loyalists throughout the 1920s and 1930s. Despite Trotsky not even being in the country for many of the things he was accused of, the show trials found him guilty of anti-Communist activities. Many of the charges and accusations blamed Trotsky for things he had never been present for and which were completely fabricated. For decades, Stalin portrayed Trotsky as a bogeyman or bugaboo. It had nothing to do with Trotsky being anti-Marxist, but everything to do with Trotsky being a leader who posed a threat to Stalin's grip on power. 

Trotsky settled in Mexico, where he wrote numerous papers and books on Marxism, including 'The Revolution Betrayed' (published in 1936) which exposed Stalin's crimes and showed him to be an anti-Marxist megalomaniac who had betrayed the revolution, the people, the proletariat. In 1938, Trotsky and his exiled supporters created the Fourth International, which accused the Communist International  (ComIntern or Third International) of being Stalinists, anti-Marxists and traitors to the revolution. Even with that, Trotsky did not want the ComIntern destroyed, as he was hoping for socialist unity. He blamed the Third International and Stalin as providing impetus for the rise of Hitler and Nazism. After living in several countries, including Turkey, France and Norway. Trotsky had relocated to Mexico in 1937. Stalin eventually succeeding in having Trotsky assassinated in 1941.    

Even after his death, Stalin and the ComIntern continued to portray Trotsky as anti-Marxist and an enemy of the Soviet state. However, Trotsky was far more Marxist than Stalin had ever been. Trotsky's issue was not with Marxism, but with Stalinism. Trotsky correctly portrayed Stalin as having betrayed the revolution. Stalin claimed to be Marxist, but his actions did not align with Marxist policies and practices. 

Stalin's purges made the 'Reds Under the Bed' paranoia of 1950's USA look positively harmless in comparison. The 'Great Purge' of 1936 to 1938 resulted in the deaths of somewhere between 700,000 and 1.2 million people. The purges resulted in an estimated 14 million being sent to the Gulags. Most of these people were imprisoned or executed on trumped up charges, with the Comintern relying on the most absurd propaganda. 

Initially, the Russian Revolution successfully supplanted the brutal and delinquent Tsar Nicholas II with a Marxist government led by Lenin. However, by 1924, rather than being the leader of a workers' state, Stalin emerged as just another Tsar with a brutal and totalitarian regime that served himself at the cost of the people. 

In his book 'Animal Farm', British author, George Orwell described this transition from a workers' revolution to a government that was almost identical to the regime the revolution had replaced. Not surprisingly, like Trotsky, Orwell was portrayed as anti-Communist. Similar to Trotsky, Orwell did not have an issue with Communism per se, but with Stalinism.

Orwell is revered by some capitalists as being a conservative who detested communism. However, Orwell was an anarcho-Communist who fought for the left-wing Republicans in the Spanish Civil War of 1936 to 1939. It is a little ironic that anarchists fought for a government, as left-wing anarchism doesn't believe in government and is based on selective Marxist principles. Petr Kropotkin, a leading 19th century anarchist, described an anarchist state as one in which the people ruled themselves without government. Although a Marxist of sorts, Kropotkin was highly critical of the communists and the communists were highly critical of anarchism. Kropotkin unleashed on the communist version of Marxism in his 1899 book The Conquest of Bread. Lenin returned the favour in his 1917 book The State and Revolution. 

The democratically elected Spanish Republican government was made up of a variety of left-wing groups, including communists, socialists, and anarcho-communists. In 1936, right-wing nationalist forces led by rebel elements of the Spanish military attempted a coup to overthrow the government and implement a right-wing Fascist regime. While the coup was unsuccessful, Spain descended into civil war. However, this was not just a war between republicans and nationalists. 

Numerous nations joined in the war, with countries such as Germany (under Hitler), Italy (under Mussolini), Portugal, Britain and United States siding with the fascist-aligned nationalists, while the Soviet Union (under Stalin) and Mexico sided with the republicans. 

Further, there was a 'war within a war', because the republicans were not a unified force. The various leftist groups were often fighting each other. They were comprised of a variety of leftist factions, including the communist Workers Party of Marxist Unification (POUM), The Popular Front, anarchists (CNT-FAI), unionists (UGT), Spanish Socialist Workers' Party (PSOE), Catalonian nationalists and Basque nationalists (not to be confused with the fascist nationalists who were fighting the Republicans). These were just the local Spanish groups. They were also joined by the communist International Brigades (international recruits under the control of Stalin).

Even though multiple nations were fighting on the side of the fascists, the UK and the USA were particularly concerned with appeasing Hitler as they were gravely worried that Germany would wage war throughout Europe. Similarly, although Stalin sided with the republicans, he too was concerned with not provoking Hitler for the same reason.  

To put it bluntly, the Spanish Civil War was a clusterfuck. It resulted in around 500,000 deaths and destroyed much of Spain, leaving it unable to effectively participate in World War II, although it's fascist president, General Franco, sided with Hitler and offered what little assistance he could.

Some commentators described the Spanish Civil War as the Second World War because of the number of nations involved in the conflict. It essentially ended in April 1939, only months before Hitler invaded Poland and initiated what is now known as the Second World War, but which could be argued was actually the Third World War. 

Stalin had sent more than 2000 Soviet officers and troops into Spain to both assist with the war effort and to infiltrate the leftist forces and undermine them. Some of the officers would report on other leftists as being traitors or Trotskyists if they dared to criticise Stalin, sometimes resulting in those leftists being executed or imprisoned by the Communists. Not surprisingly, the other leftist groups retaliated by firing on the Communists. It was clear that the Communists were being directed by Moscow. Stalin was more interested in shoring up his own power in Spain, than in winning the war for the Spanish. He even ordered the creation of concentration camps for leftists who did not kowtow to Stalinism. The Communist attacks on other leftists forces created a civil war within the civil war. It's no wonder that Franco and his fascist forces won. 

During the Spanish Civil War, the Soviet NKVD exported their torture, persecution and executions to Spain; establishing dozens of concentration camps around Madrid. Although the Russian Communists claimed to be anti-fascist and allied with the Republicans, it wasn't only the fascists and Nationalists who the NKVD imprisoned, tortured and executed. The Soviets had deployed the NKVD and SIM to Spain to persecute, torture, imprison, and execute anti-Stalinists, including other leftist groups, such as the anarchists, unionists, the communist POUM, and anyone who dared criticise Stalin or the intentions of the Communist Party in the Civil War. It should be noted, that the Nationalists also were guilty of imprisoning, torturing and executing people. Between the Soviets and the Nationalists, it is estimated that up to 200,000 people died as a result of torture and execution; accounting for approximately 40% of all deaths in the civil war. After the war, the Nationalists executed a further 50,000.

The Communists claimed victory over the nationalists when they attacked Madrid in November 1936, even though the Communists only accounted for around 5% of the leftist forces. The majority of forces were from other leftist groups. The Communist declaration of victory was extremely premature, with the war dragging on for another two and half years. By late 1938, the Nationalists were clearly winning the war. The Communists wanted to continue hostilities even in the face of imminent defeat. Stalin had been hoping for victory in Spain to increase his power and influence in Europe by turning Spain into a satellite of the Soviet Union. The Communists wanted a centralised government that they controlled, which did not fare well with other leftists, who were not particularly endeared to Stalin.

Local Spaniards just wanted peace regardless of who would win. Not surprisingly, they too had become disillusioned with the Communists, because of their arrogance, anti-Trotskyist paranoia, brutality towards civilians, fascists and other leftists. 

British writer, George Orwell and American writer, Ernest Hemingway, both travelled to Spain to fight on the side of the Republicans. Orwell fought for the Anarchists. In seeing the brutality that Communist forces and the NKVD unleashed against fellow leftists, Orwell became disillusioned with Stalin's version of Communism. 

Not much has changed since the Spanish Civil War. Leftist groups still have disparate views of what a Marxist state would look like, and whether it would be achieved through revolution or reformism. Revolutionaries consider that the only way to introduce Marxism is to overthrow the capitalist state . Reformists have the view of incremental change through election of left-wing groups to government within the capitalist state.

Disappointingly, most socialist or communist groups spend more time criticising each other than in working together against the forces of capitalism and to end the exploitation of workers. Sociologist and economic historian, Immanuel Wallerstein referred to '1000 Marxisms' in describing the fragmentation of political parties and groups that align themselves with Marxism. They all have different interpretations of Marxism and different priorities. Many describe themselves as revolutionary, others as reformist. Until Marxists have at least a modicum of unity, there will be no successful socialist revolution. 

Workers in the west do not see themselves as needing socialism. They are terrified of it because of the association with the totalitarian regimes of Stalin and Mao. In his book 'A Short History of Progress', Canadian author, Ronald Wright, paraphrased John Steinbeck with a quote that perfectly encapsulates the issue that Marxists face in motivating workers to rise up in revolution:

'Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires'. 

Illustration by Greg Newbold for the Wall Street Journal

In the current environment of contrasting Marxist groups, reformation is the best that can be hoped for through the promotion of identity politics in lieu of workers seizing the means of production, and the election of left-wing politicians to democratic governments. This is far removed from the workers' state that Marx had in mind, but it is better than nothing. Until Marxists can decouple themselves from Stalin, unify their position and articulate the need for Marxism in a manner that is meaningful to workers, then there will not be a successful socialist revolution. Perhaps, it may be worthwhile to decouple from Trotsky and Lenin as well. The association with the Soviet Union makes a toxic brand for Marxists. Instead, go back to the basics that Marx and Engels proposed and start afresh. 

Right-wing governments have been using bigotry and xenophobia to stoke fear in people and subsequently encouraging nationalism to galvanise support from the electorate. They turn workers and the electorate against others, against minorities, against 'woke' agendas, against socialism. The danger with this is that we saw what happened previously with extreme nationalism through the rise of Hitler and the use of nationalism by Stalin. Even though Stalin and Hitler were politically on opposing ends of the political spectrum, they both established regimes based on nationalism, totalitarianism and xenophobia. 

Marxist groups need to counter this through promoting unity and internationalism. The brutal exploitation of capitalism needs to be exposed. People consider slavery to have ended in the 19th century, however, as of 2021 there were an estimated 50 million people enslaved across the globe. Slavery exists in all countries and its victims are from all works of life. Much of it is driven by the insatiable desire for reducing costs while maximising profits, which happens at the expense of workers.

Many other workers are exploited through wage theft, underpayment of wages or working longer hours than they are paid. There some who are known as the 'working poor'. They have jobs, sometimes several jobs, and still struggle to make ends meet or are homeless. Meanwhile, corporate profits and CEO wages grossly outstrip workers' wages. Marx described profit as being 'the surplus value, or that part of the total value of the commodity in which the surplus labour or unpaid labour of the working man is realized'. In other words, profit is realised through the underpayment of workers. Marxism ensures an equitable sharing of products and wages with workers, while workers also have control over the workplace. 

Workers are still an exploited proletariat, they just don't realise it. Capitalism appeals to people's greed and individualism, while politicians manipulate them through nationalism and fear. Marxist groups have to address this and convince people to share and care for each other, to build community cohesion, to stand against exploitation of people and the environment. Conservatives call this being 'woke'. Well, it's time for workers to wake up and see that they are the exploited, they are being manipulated for corporate greed, and that the real enemy is capitalism, not minorities or other workers. Workers need to unify against the capitalist oppressors in order to end exploitation and liberate workers globally.

Marx and Engels published The Communist Manifesto in 1848, in which they called for worker unity. The sentiment is as true and necessary today as it was back then.

Workers of the world unite. You have nothing to lose but your chains.  

Image of Karl Marx licenced from Shutterstock

Sources

Beevor, A, 2006, The Battle for Spain: The Spanish Civil War 1936-1939, Weidenfeld & Nicolson 

Briggs, W, 2020, Removing the Stalin Stain, Zero Books

Kropotkin, P, 1899, The Conquest of Bread. 

Lenin, V, 1917, The State and Revolution.

Large, DC, 1991, Between Two Fires: Europe's Path in the 1930s, WW Norton & Co

Marx, K, 1865, Value, Price and Profit, https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/value-price-profit.pdf

Marx, K, & Engels, F, 1848, The Communist Manifesto, https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Manifesto.pdf

McCannon, J, 1995, Soviet Intervention in the Spanish Civil War, 1936-39: A Reexamination, Russian History, Vol 22(2), pp 154-180, https://www.jstor.org/stable/24657802

Orwell, G, 1938, Homage to Catalonia, Mariner Books (2015)

Romendik, D, 2014, The dark history of Lubyanka, 11 February, Russia Beyond, viewed 31 December 2022, https://www.rbth.com/arts/2014/02/11/the_dark_history_of_lubyanka_32985

Trotsky, L, 1936, The Revolution Betrayed, Dover Publications (2004)

Walk Free Foundation, Global estimates of modern slavery 2022, https://www.walkfree.org/reports/global-estimates-of-modern-slavery-2022/ 

Wall Street Journal, ‘Mad at the World: A Life of John Steinbeck’ Review: The Poison Cup of Gold, viewed 31 December 2022, https://www.wsj.com/articles/mad-at-the-world-a-life-of-john-steinbeck-review-the-poison-cup-of-gold-11601567960

Michael Moore's Planet of the Humans - fact, fiction & the future

Michael Moore's Planet of the Humans - fact, fiction & the future

By Ranting Panda, 17 May 2020

American filmmaker, Michael Moore, has produced another controversial documentary. This one is called Planet of the Humans. Jeff Gibbs provides the dulcet narration.

The film makes several claims which have angered environmentalists and warmed the cockles of right-wing hearts across the globe. Many of those claims are false or misrepresentations. However, Moore also makes a number of claims which are spot on, but which his new-found friends of the right-wing conveniently ignore.

In summary, Moore claims that renewable energy, particularly solar, wind and biomass, are as damaging for the environment as coal-fired energy generation. He does make some good points, particularly around mining practices and slavery, as well as the fact that humans cannot continue exploiting the world's non-renewable resources. He correctly points out that current attempts by governments and industrialists to introduce renewable energy is aimed at continuing unsustainable and exploitative production practices in the name of consumerism and capitalism. However, much of his claims about the environmental costs of renewable energy are either false, reference old technology or lack consideration of life-cycle assessment.

Ronnie Brakels has provided an excellent critique of Moore's claim that renewables are as damaging as fossil fuels, by stating that it is tantamount to claiming that bicycles are as bad for the environment as cars (Brakel 2020). After all, bicycles are manufactured using coal, iron ore and environmentally damaging mining and production processes; bikes can only be ridden on sunny days for relatively short distances, so riders will often have a car as a back-up form of transport; and the people who ride bikes need food, which causes environmental damage through agricultural practices. Even the most sceptical anti-environmentalist would find it difficult to seriously argue that bikes are as environmentally damaging as cars, or that they produce as much pollution. Yet, this is the nature of Moore's claim when he states that renewable technologies consume iron ore and coal, and that they require existing electricity grids to supplement their usage on cloudy days.

Moore misses the point that while fossil fuels and mining may be involved in the production of renewable energy products, such as solar panels, wind turbines, and electric vehicles, once they are in operation their consumption of fossil fuels is negligible compared to the operation of coal fired power plants and fossil-fuel powered cars; not dissimilar to the push-bike example provided by Brakels.

The key thing lacking in Michael Moore's argument is Life-cycle Assessment (LCA), which is a cradle-to-grave analysis of the environmental impact of a product. At its most basic, LCA calculates how much carbon is produced in the manufacture and operation of a product with the amount of carbon removed or offset by the product. Moore embraces the climate change denialist rationale that all green technology is claimed to be carbon-free, while failing to understand the basic concept of carbon neutral or carbon negative. That is, that green technology is not carbon free, but that the carbon dioxide emitted in its production and operation is much less than the carbon removed or offset by the product or the carbon-free energy generated over the life of the product, thus reducing the amount of electricity required to be produced by coal-fired power stations.

Moore makes the outdated claim that the energy generated by solar panels over their life-time does not cover the energy taken to produce them in the first place. He also argues that solar panels have a life expectancy of 10 years. Both of these claims are false. Solar panels have a life expectancy of up to 30 years, with an energy payback period of two years (Parkinson 2013). So it takes two years for a solar panel to recoup the energy taken to produce it, while then generating at least another 28 years of clean energy without further consumption of coal. How can that possibly be as bad as a coal-fired power plant that continues consuming coal and producing dirty energy for those 28 years? Many solar panel manufacturers offer 25 year warranties (Energy Informative n.d.). Even after 25 years, the panels' output is around 80% (Stahley 2019).

Solar panel payback period, life expectancy and energy output (Adapted from Parkinson 2013)

Moore tries to justify his inaccurate claims by highlighting a couple of concerts that promoted sustainability, yet ended up being powered by the coal-generated electricity grid. He seems to not grasp the concept that at this point, solar and wind are not yet capable of completely replacing coal-fired power stations ... but we are getting there. Moore has this short-sighted view that renewables will not replace coal, that they are always going to be dependent on coal for meeting demand. This is not true. Many countries and states are increasingly utilising renewable energy for electricity generation and greatly reducing their reliance on fossil fuels. Many countries have committed to 100% renewable energy for electricity generation by 2050, including Costa Rica, Denmark, Bangladesh, Kenya, Philippines, Portugal, Sri Lanka and Sweden (REN21 2019, pp 194-196). Scotland has achieved 98% use of renewables through wind power, while Uruguay is almost at 100% renewables, and Denmark is generating more than half its electricity from renewables (Climate Council 2019).

Raconteur (2018)

One thing of crucial importance that Moore did identify, was the matter of unethical mining practices. The world is currently experiencing more people in slavery that at any time in history, with more than 40 million people in slavery and more than 150 million exploited through child labour (International Labour Organization 2017). Moore's documentary does show that mining is an industry that has significant levels of slavery in it. This is an issue that must be addressed regardless of whether the products manufactured from it are solar panels, components in coal-fired power stations, batteries, cars or mobile phones. Every supply chain is at risk of modern slavery and there are efforts underway to address this.

Moore does make a good point about bio-mass, however, not all bio-mass comes from living trees; some of it is from waste wood that is decaying and therefore, releasing carbon anyway. Nonetheless, wood chipping forests as a form of renewable energy is not sustainable, as plants and forests absorb carbon. While biomass is not an acceptable form of renewable energy, Moore's focus on it blows it way out of proportion. In 2019, biomass accounted for 1% of the United States energy mix and 5% of Europe's energy mix (Yale Climate Connections 2020). If the world wishes to continue using biomass and biogas, it can be done far more efficiently with less environmental damage, through the use of hemp. This is a crop that is fast growing, requires less land, causes less environmental damage and yields up to 120% more energy than other forms of biomass (Prade et al 2011).

For all of its hyperbole, the doco provides little in the way of alternative solutions. In relation to energy alternatives, it seems to suggest continuing the use of fossil fuels. The world is being destroyed by the use of unsustainable fossil fuels, and Moore appears to advocate for continuing these practices.

One thing that Moore does get right is the need to reduce consumption. Capitalist economies are driven by consumerism, at the expense of other people and the environment. Slavery is the worst it has ever been as capitalists pursue excessive profits at the expense of the world's most vulnerable, through ever-increasing consumerism that is driven by greed for unnecessary products designed for short life expectancy through obsolence or perceived obsolence.

By the year 2000, consumption of iron ore had increased more than 1000% over the previous 100 years. In the first, 20 years of the 21st century, it increased a further 2000% (Callier 2018). During this time, carbon dioxide emissions have increased by 1500%, while water use, coal production and crop harvests increased between 500% and 1000%. These increases are unprecedented in history. Apart from increasing waste and environmental degradation, the dramatic increase in demand for raw materials is likely to result in resource scarcity, resulting in conflict and war (Callier 2018).

Callier (2018)

Some may see the documentary as championing fossil fuels, discrediting renewable technology and
justifying climate change denialism. However, the documentary's criticism of unfettered consumerism demonstrates the need for the planned international economy envisioned by Karl Marx. Our modern society has more knowledge of people's needs than ever before. Big data combined with artificial intelligence can be used to forecast production requirements to address everyone's needs and temper excess consumption. Robotics and additive manufacturing can produce those requirements efficiently using green technology. While robotics and additive manufacturing could cost jobs, ultimately, people will not need to work in such a world where their needs are forecast and met. This will fulfil another of Marx's ideas around a planned economy not requiring money. Yes, we could provide everyone a minimum living wage, however, this would just be a step on the path to doing away with money altogether. Why have money when our needs are already met through the power of big data, AI and robotics.

Moore states that renewable technology will not save the world. He is correct: renewable energy alone will not save the world, however, renewables must replace fossil fuels and be coupled with managing demand and reducing excessive consumption to ensure that the world remains liveable for future generations.

The world cannot continue exploiting people or the environment. It cannot continue using fossil fuels, which are limited resources, damage the environment and drive climate change through carbon emissions. The documentary may have been music to the ears of industrialists, climate change denialists and fossil fuel warriors, however, the puerile claim that renewable energy is as environmentally damaging as fossil fuels is naive and ignorant.

The world must continue developing and improving renewable technology to reduce social and environmental impacts, while society needs to reduce demand for unnecessary products that drive environmental degradation through their production and waste. At the same time, we must address abusive labour practices, in which more than 40 million people are in modern slavery, more than 150 million in child labor, and millions more exploited for low wages and horrendous working conditions.

References

Brakel, R 2020, 'Michael Moore attacks renewable industry by detonating his own credibility', Solarquotes Blog, 1 May, viewed 3 May 2020, https://www.solarquotes.com.au/blog/planet-of-humans-review/.

Callier, V 2018, 'The quickening pace of global metabolism', Knowable Magazine, 29 June, viewed 16 May 2020, https://www.knowablemagazine.org/article/sustainability/2018/quickening-pace-global-metabolism.

Climate Council 2019, '11 countries leading the charge on renewable energy', 13 January, viewed 11 May 2020, https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/11-countries-leading-the-charge-on-renewable-energy/.

Energy Informative n.d., 'The real lifespan of solar panels', viewed 16 May 2020, https://energyinformative.org/lifespan-solar-panels/.

International Labour Organization 2017, '40 million in modern slavery and 152 million in child labour around the world', 19 November, viewed 4 May 2020, https://www.ilo.org/global/about-the-ilo/newsroom/news/WCMS_574717/lang--en/index.htm.

Parkinson, G 2013, 'Graph of the Day: Myth of solar PV energy payback time', Renew Economy, 15 March, viewed 10 May 2020, https://reneweconomy.com.au/graph-of-the-day-myth-of-solar-pv-energy-payback-time-22167/.

Prade, T, Svensson, S, Andersson, A, Mattsson, JE 2011, 'Biomass and energy yield of industrial hemp grown for biogas and solid fuel', ScienceDirect, Biomass and bioenergy vol 35 (2011) 3040 e3049, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/251627798_Biomass_and_energy_yield_of_industrial_hemp_grown_for_biogas_and_solid_fuel/link/5ac3287aaca27222c75d317a/download.

Raconteur 2018, 'Energy Transition', Raconteur, viewed 16 May 2020, https://res.cloudinary.com/yumyoshojin/image/upload/v1/pdf/responsible-business-2018.pdf.

REN21 2019, 'Renewables 2019 - Global Status Report', viewed 11 May 2020, https://www.ren21.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/gsr_2019_full_report_en.pdf.

Stahley, B 2019, 'Commercial solar panel degradation: What you should know and keep in mind', Sunpower, 1 August, viewed 16 May 2020, https://businessfeed.sunpower.com/articles/what-to-know-about-commercial-solar-panel-degradation.

Yale Climate Connections 2020, 'Michael Moore's 'Planet of the Humans' documentary attacks climate solutions', Ecowatch, 1 May, viewed 3 May 2020, https://www.ecowatch.com/michael-moore-climate-denial-2645892109.html.

Name a successful Communist country!

Name a successful Communist country!

By Ranting Panda
2 November 2019

Marxism didn't fail ... but it was betrayed!

One of the common challenges that capos like to throw at communists is to name a successful communist country. Ok ... how about ... Australia! No, they'll opine, that's not communist. Ok ... so what do they think is a communist country? Their answers are pretty predictable: Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Cuba. Oh ... you mean Marxist? Yes, they'll reply.

About that ...

There haven't been any truly Marxist countries in the world. Following the Russian Revolution, the Bolsheviks did attempt to implement communism, and initially had some success, including industrialising a heavily agrarian nation, dramatically improving literacy rates and establishing workers' collectives to run the means of production. The Bolsheviks also abolished private ownership of factories so that they were run by workers, and established a planned economy that initially modernised and improved Russian society compared to where it had been under the Tsar (Woods 2017). There was also partial demonetisation (in which state enterprises supplied each other without payment), provision of free rations to workers, and abolition of rent and tramway tickets (Nove 1986, p. 65). Women were granted full equality with men and received equal pay, while abortion was legalised in 1920; all of this occurring, decades before equality was achieved in western countries, and even now, many western nations are still fighting for legalised abortion (Woods 2017). Immediately following the Russian Revolution, it was not practical for the Bolsheviks to completely dismantle the existing economic structure and replace it overnight with a Marxist system.

This was occurring in concert with the civil war. After overthrowing the Tsarist regime, the first promise that the Bolsheviks kept was to withdraw Russia from World War I. Forces loyal to the Tsar (the White Army) called on imperialist forces, particularly the US and UK, to side with them against the Red Army. This precipitated the Russian Civil War. As an aside, it's interesting that this is called a civil war when it was in fact, an international invasion of Russia to combat communism. Few people call the Vietnam War a civil war, yet it was similar in many ways to the Russian Civil War. North and South Vietnam were at war, and the US and its allies invaded to defeat the so-called communist North. By 1922, when the Russian 'Civil War' ended, more than 8 million were dead; some from the fighting and many from the famine that resulted as both sides directed efforts to the war. Capitalists tend to blame the Bolsheviks for the millions dead while ignoring their own role in these deaths.

During the war, Lenin implemented 'war communism' in direct response to the White Army and imperialist aggression. In 1918, imperialist forces directed by US President Wilson, blockaded Russia to choke it economically. In 1914, Russia's imports were 936 million poods and its exports were 1,472 million poods. The blockade reduced this to 11.5 million poods and exports 1.8 million in 1918, to zero in 1919 (Serge 1930). No wonder that Lenin needed to take drastic steps.

 'War Communism' included requisitioning excess grain produced by farmers, so that the Red Army could be fed. Farmers couldn't sell their extra grain, so they stopped producing it. This along effects of the Russian Civil War and significant lack of rain through 1920 and 1921, caused a famine and mass starvation that killed millions of people. Compare this to Churchill who forcibly requisitioned grain from Indian farmers to feed Britons during World War 2, resulting in the Bengal Famine that killed more than four million people. Whereas Lenin took repratory steps, Churchill's response to a report telling him of the millions of deaths caused by his policy, was to reiterate his racist hatred of Indians, when he wrote on the report, 'Why hasn’t Gandhi died yet?' (Tharoor 2017, p. 160). He went on to state, 'I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion. The famine was their own fault for breeding like rabbits'. Charming.

The Russian economy had been greatly weakened by the former Tsarist regime, the Great War and the Russian Civil War. As Lenin realised the extent of the economic rebuilding required, he ended 'War Communism' and introduced the 'New Economic Policy' (NEP), blending socialism and capitalism, which he felt was necessary given the poor state of the Russian economy. The NEP strengthened the economy through greater industrialisation, significantly improved literacy rates and helped the people and the economy to recover. Lenin died in 1924 and Stalin assumed power. In 1928, Stalin abolished the NEP.

When Stalin took power he introduced a closed economy, which is something that Marx railed against. Marx stated that communism could only succeed if it was an international effort, with many countries involved. Marx promoted the idea of a planned economy, which would temper the over-consumption and greed that drives capitalist states, but there is a big difference between planned and closed. Stalin's politics was a betrayal of Marxism and the revolution. The closed economies of East Germany, China, and North Korea were not run as Marxist states; they did not have workers' collectives, workers did not control the means of production. These were totalitarian regimes that eschewed democracy, closed their economies and modelled themselves on Stalinism, right down to political persecution, torture, disappearances and state-led mass killings. Their economies were mismanaged and their governments corrupt. Most so-called communist or socialist countries were satellite states of the Soviet Union.

The ultimate goal of Communism, according to Marx, was a workers' utopia in which needs were fulfilled, without greed, and without the need for a monetary system. Not one nation that labelled itself Communist, implemented this.

There were some successes, however. Similar to the contradictions of Stalin's Soviet Union, it was the Marxist elements that grew economies of so-called socialist or communist nations, while it was the excesses of bureaucracy that weakened them. In Cuba for instance, power was centralised with Castro, with no democracy, no opposition parties, brutal treatment of dissenters and a press that was merely a mouthpiece of the government (Foran 2009, p. 24). Cuba is one of the few revolutionary states that was able to withstand decades of US hostility and blockades. Foran (2009, p. 20) states that 'Few revolutions have been able to withstand the renewed counter-revolutionary attention of dominant outside powers and their regional allies'. Even given this, Cuba achieved some impressive outcomes as a result of the revolution, including unemployment becoming almost non-existent, income distribution being the fairest in Latin America, rent being limited to 10% of a person's income, almost no beggars or slum housing, 80% of Cubans owning their own houses, no starvation or chronic food shortages, free education and medical care, high literacy rates, low infant mortality compared to other areas in Latin America, life expectancy rose from 57 years in 1958 (the year before Castro took power) to 73.5 years in 1983, one of of the lowest crime rates in the world, and dramatic improvement in women's lives (with men required by law to help with the housework) (Foran 2009, pp. 21-22).

Vietnam also achieved much given the adversity it faced in its infancy. Because of the brutal treatment by the Japanese and French colonisers in Vietnam, communism gained popularity. Elections were scheduled to be held in 1956 across the country (which included north and south Vietnam) and it is estimated that 80% of the population would have voted for Ho Chi Minh, the Communist leader. The US, in typical style, undermined this and elections were cancelled, resulting in a corrupt US puppet being installed in South Vietnam, where the French still had some power. This culminated in a civil war between North and South Vietnam, with the US invading to stop the Communists from taking over South Vietnam. The US war against North Vietnam resulted in more high explosives being dropped on this tiny nation, then the Allied Forces dropped on Germany and Japan combined during World War 2 ... not to mention, the use of napalm and agent orange on civilian populations and other war crimes in which civilians were massacred (Davies 2015).

The US lost that war, but continued the battle through propaganda and corrupting the leadership with capitalism. Vietnam suffered more than three million casualties, and was left with 10 million refugees, one million war widows, 880,000 orphans, 362,000 war invalids and three million unemployed. US high explosives destroyed more than five million hectares of forest. The economy was left in ruins, with inflation running at 900%. Rice paddies were destroyed, leaving Vietnam to import rice. During peace talks, the US agreed to pay $3.5 billion in reparations, but never paid up, instead it went on to impose a trade embargo. Following the war, the Vietnamese government confiscated personal land holdings, forcibly acquired produce from farmers at very low prices and forced people into labour. Dissenters and many South Vietnamese were imprisoned, tortured and subject to inhumane treatment.

Vietnam, like other nations, modelled itself on Stalinism, not Marxism. However, it did include Marxist elements in its economy, which strengthened its rebuilding efforts. For instance, in 1975 there was 70% poverty. By 1992 this had reduced to 58% of the population, and by the year 2000, it had dropped to 32% (Davies 2015). The government built dozens of primary and secondary schools, and established a free healthcare framework. Since 2000, the government has become increasingly capitalist, which caused some to become wealthy, while the gap between the rich and poor continues to increase. Corruption has increased as capitalism expands, with the problem exacerbated by the selling of state-owned companies. British academic, Martin Gainsborough, described Vietnam's corruption: 'Rather than being inspired by reformist ideals, officials have been motivated by much more venal desires … What we often refer to as ‘reform’ is as much about attempts by rival political-business interests to gain control over financial and other resources' (Davies 2015). Capitalism has continued to destroy the economy, with around 70% of people losing their land by 2010, employees no longer paid a living wage (which they had been getting in 1990), health and schooling no longer free, and poverty increasing dramatically, (Davies 2015). While people fear communism, it is capitalism that has stolen the property and dreams of the Vietnamese.

Vietnam was styled on Stalinism, rather than Marxism. Marxism's basic tenet was 'from each according to their ability, to each according their need'. Vietnam and many of these so-called communist or socialist governments nationalised industries and took wealth from workers, but did not redistribute to those in need, nor did they empower workers. This wasn't Marxism.

The apparent failure of Marxist states is less to do with Marxism, and more to do with corruption, greed, lust for power, mismanagement and external hostile forces. Additionally, revolutions are often not well planned 'because of divergent visions of how to remake society and unequal capacities to make those visions prevail' (Foran 2009, p. 20). Many of the revolutions were not well thought through. It's one thing to overthrow a corrupt government, it's another thing entirely to replace it with, and maintain, a new government and economic model.

There were interesting contradictions in the Soviet Union, post-Lenin. While Stalin dismantled much of what was achieved in the October Revolution, the nationalised planned economy remained, which helped to strengthen the Soviet Union's growth, while maintaining little to no inflation and almost full employment (Woods 2017). Ted Grant, one of the most important Marxist writers since Trotsky, detested Stalin but saw the benefits of socialism in the Soviet Union, despite the counter-revolutionary efforts of Stalin, 'Russia is a workers' state because the land, mines, banks, factories, railways have been taken out of the hands of the capitalists and have been nationalised' (Grant 1941).

Unfortunately, Stalin's heavily bureaucratic and increasingly corrupt regime (which was anathema to Marxism), saw much of the benefits of the planned economy accumulated by bureaucrats, while the workers continued to suffer and be deprived. Post-Stalin, the corruption, waste and mismanagement continued, while choking the progression once achieved by the planned economic model. Just like in capitalist countries, the Soviet Union experienced an increasing gulf between the rich and the poor (Woods 2017). Similarly, the countries behind the Iron Curtain experienced economic growth through planned economies, but were undermined by corrupt bureaucracies that were not Marxist. 'Genuine socialism is incompatible with the rule of a privileged bureaucratic elite, which will inevitably be accompanied by colossal corruption, nepotism, waste, mismanagement and chaos' (Woods 2017).

Trotsky had articulated the need for socialist internationalism, when he wrote, 'The socialist revolution begins on the national arena, it unfolds on the international arena, and is completed on the world arena. Thus, the socialist revolution becomes a permanent revolution in a newer and broader sense of the word: it attains completion only in the final victory of the new society on our entire planet' (Trotsky 1906).

There have been attempts at socialism and communism, but much of those were shut down very quickly by capitalist nations, particularly the United States. It is no secret that the US created the School of the Americas to train right-wing terrorists to fight and overthrow any attempts at left-wing governments in South America. Chile's President Allende is a case in point. His left-wing government attempted to control production, improve workers' conditions, care for the poor and redistribute wealth more equitably. This was abhorrent to the greed and self-serving nature of capitalism, so the US funded a coup that brought in the brutal right-wing dictator, Pinochet, who subsequently massacred thousands of Chileans (Blum 2004). But hey, it was now a capitalist country.

In Venezuela, Chavez was elected in 1998 on a platform of anti-corruption and nationalised private industry, redistribution of wealth and empowering the people. However, Chavez went on to nationalise private industry without warning and without cooperation of the people, instead confiscating or expropriating companies (Carillo 2016). Chavez's plans to end poverty never happened because of his inability to properly implement a Marxist system and his economic incompetence.

It should be noted that each of these states were not truly Marxist as none of them established workers' states, none of them gave power to the working class; instead each was run by someone who did not adequately represent the workers and who did not empower workers to run the government. Ted Grant (1941) summarised Lenin's conditions for a workers' state, as being:

1. All officials to be elected with right of recall through workers' Councils (Soviets).
2. The abolition of the standing army and its substitution by the armed people.
3. No official to receive a wage higher than that of a skilled worker.
4. Administrative posts to be filled gradually in rotation so that no permanent officialdom could be formed

Clearly, none of the so-called socialist or communist nations, satisfied these conditions because of stringent and corrupt bureaucracies. Their totalitarian regimes established permanent officialdom and standing armies.

Marx did not envision a sudden replacement of capitalism with communism. Instead, he believed that a transition period would be necessary in which there would be elements of communism and capitalism before finally achieving a truly communist state. This would transition through hybrid systems to socialism and ultimately, to communism.

Capitalism requires workers to work long hours for the lowest possible wages that an employer can get away with, while the company makes exorbitant profits that are not adequately shared with the workforce. Socialism allows a greater sharing of the wealth, with what's earned being shared among the workforce. Under Communism, workers have full access to all that is produced with no need for wages.

Ask capitalists to explain what socialism is. This is where the fun really starts. There are so many different answers and almost all are wrong. I'll dot-point a few for brevity.

• 'The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money'. Umm ... no. This little gem is courtesy of former UK Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher. She was obviously thinking of capitalism. Ever been to an investment or business seminar? Invariably, the speaker will smugly claim that the best way to get rich is by using other people's money. Robert Kiyosaki, author of the best-selling Rich Dad, Poor Dad, says exactly this. In fact, he calls it 'Rich Dad OPM' ... opium or Other People's Money (Kiyosaki 2019). Many people venerate capitalism like a religion, and as Marx pointed out, 'religion is the opiate of the masses'. It is capitalism that aims to part people from their money. That is the very essence of consumerism: get people to give their money to wealthy, in exchange for some perception of success, e.g. having the latest smartphone. And that wealth is accumulated by individuals, instead of being shared with the people who actually created the products.
  
  Socialism is not about using other people's money, but about workers retaining and sharing in the money earned. For instance, recently there was a strike at General Motors in the United States. The strike cost GM up to $100 million per day (CBS News 2019). The CEO earns almost $22 million per year, around $423,000 per week or more than $60,000 per day (Klayman & Shumaker 2019). The CEO's daily wage is more than many GM workers earn in a year. The CEO is turning up to work every day during the strike, but can't produce the $100 million per day that is being lost. Clearly, it's not the CEO or the highly paid executives producing GM's earnings, it's the workers. This illustrates that capitalism is the ideology that gets rich on other people's money, on other people's labour.
• Socialism doesn't make profits. This furphy follows on from Margaret Thatcher's quote about other people's money. It presupposes that socialism doesn't sell things at a profit, yet it has no issue with making a profit (or surplus value as Marx called it), just not profits that are excessive or based on exploitation. After all, if there is no profit or surplus value, how can there be wealth or necessary commodities to share among the workers. Various economic models were proposed for socialist economies, including profit-based ones and the utopian concept of a planned economy obviating the need for commodities, value, prices, wages and ultimately, money itself (Nove 1987, pp. 53-64). Different models were operated with a degree of success in East Germany, Hungary, Yugoslavia and other countries to that in the Soviet Union (Stephanson 1984). Marx identified that this profit or surplus value is appropriated by capitalists at the expense of the workers who produced it. A pure Marxist economy would have no need for money at all, as production would be designed to meet the needs of society.
• Socialism will steal all of your property. Noooo ... again, you're thinking of capitalism. Socialism and Communism differentiate between public property, private property and personal property. Public property is self-explanatory. Socialism and Communism do not abolish personal property. You can still own your clothes, TV, mobile phone, car, house and so on (Hiley 2018).
  
  The private property that Marx referred to was the factories and the banks. In 1847, Frederick Engels wrote, 'This industrial revolution was precipitated by the discovery of the steam engine, various spinning machines, the mechanical loom, and a whole series of other mechanical devices. These machines, which were very expensive and hence could be bought only by big capitalists, altered the whole mode of production and displaced the former workers, because the machines turned out cheaper and better commodities than the workers could produce with their inefficient spinning wheels and handlooms. The machines delivered industry wholly into the hands of the big capitalists and rendered entirely worthless the meagre property of the workers (tools, looms, etc.). The result was that the capitalists soon had everything in their hands and nothing remained to the workers. This marked the introduction of the factory system into the textile industry'. Engels went to explain how this enslaved the working class to the big industrialists. It also differentiates between private property and personal property, by discussing the equipment workers owned. Engels promoted the concept of personal property, when he wrote, 'The manufacturing worker of the 16th to the 18th centuries still had, with but few exception, an instrument of production in his own possession – his loom, the family spinning wheel, a little plot of land which he cultivated in his spare time. The proletarian (working class) has none of these things' (Engels 1847). The manufacturing class had been overtaken and virtually enslaved to the industrialists, losing their personal property. It was this theft of personal property, livelihood and freedoms that incensed Marx and Engels.
  
  Marx and Engels did not believe that it benefited society for industry to be in the hands of big industrialists, of capitalists. Instead, they called for industry to be owned by the people, the workers. Engels further explained, '... private property cannot be separated from competition and the individual management of industry. Private property must, therefore, be abolished and in its place must come the common utilization of all instruments of production and the distribution of all products according to common agreement – in a word, what is called the communal ownership of goods' (Engels 1847).
  
  We've seen the debacle that ensues when services, such as hospitals, schools, prisons, gas and utility companies, and public transport are privatised. They end up costing far more, while being less reliable than when in public ownership. Marx stated, 'Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriations' (Marx 1848, p. 24).
• Socialism is not democratic. Well, in point of fact, socialism is more democratic than capitalism. When the people are controlling the means of production and the government, they get to have a true say in how things are run. Unlike capitalism, in which people have an illusion of democracy because they cast a vote once every few years to elect politicians, who often then go on to do things that the people had no say in. In a capitalist state, it is the wealthy who have the most influence. Large companies and industry bodies don't contribute to political parties simply out of ideology. After all, many contribute to all the major parties with the intention of influencing public policy in their favour. That is plutocracy not democracy, and it is plutocracy that flourishes in capitalist states.
• Socialism wants to make everybody the same. This is not the case. The basic tenet of Marxism, 'from each according to their ability, to each according to their need', acknowledges that people have different abilities and needs. It isn't about making everyone the same, but it is about no person being more favoured over others. It is about ensuring people have the same opportunities in life, even if this means that they require more attention to achieve that, then someone else. For instance, someone with a disability may need more assistance in achieving educational outcomes. Perhaps, someone from a disadvantaged background, who lives in poverty and has little education, may require more assistance than someone who already has a good education.
• Socialism promotes genocide through class warfare. So how does this explain the genocides caused by capitalist countries? Marx does not call for genocide. Capitalist states create class warfare, socialism dismantles the class structures that are inherent in capitalism; the class structures that create division, hatred, greed, envy, fear and identity politics. In capitalism the wealthy deliberately divert middle-class angst against the poor and exploited, rather than against those who do the exploiting. The accumulation of wealth in capitalist states has caused gross economic inequality, and subsequently, political inequality and exploitation. It is that capitalists exploit to coerce workers to fight against each other, to 'volunteer' to serve militaries that invade and kill civilians across the globe.
  
  Capitalists take the high moral ground, pointing to millions dead under Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. In doing so, they ignore or justify the crimes of capitalism, such as Churchill who allowed millions of Indians to starve to death so he could ensure Britons were fed during World War II. The British were responsible for many massacres and famines, killing millions of people globally. The Irish Potato Famine of 1845-1849 was deliberately caused by British economic policy that took land off the Irish and put it in control of British absentee landlords (Thornton 2017). More than one million people died. In Iran during 1917-1919, following the Russian Revolution, the British forces based in Persia, deliberately blocked imports of wheat and grain into Iran, creating genocidal conditions to destroy Iran and give Britain power over the area (Abbesi 2019).
  
  Many of the wars waged by the US following World War 2, were based on their paranoid 'domino theory', which feared that if one nation fell to Communism, many others would too. The United States waged wars and sponsored right-wing despots, such as Pinochet, Suharto, Somoza and Nicaraguan death squads, the Argentinian Junta, while waging or sponsoring wars based on lies and propaganda, such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea and Guatemala, resulting in the deaths of millions (Blum 2004). The US sponsored the overthrow of the communist government of Indonesia's President Sukarno and replaced him with a right-wing despot, President Suharto. Communists were executed across the country, with estimates of more than one million victims of Suharto, of capitalism. But at least Indonesia was no longer communist. This was all part of a plan by the US and the UK to impose a global capitalist economy on Asia that benefited western nations and subjugated eastern ones (Pilger 2003). Is it any wonder that the bulk of today's slavery is based in Asia. The US funded terrorism in Afghanistan during the 1980s, which led to the horrendous terrorism of today (Cooley 2002). These wars were based on capitalist ideology with no concern for the devastating impacts on people.

Name a successful capitalist country. The United States? Yeah, how's that working out for the millions in poverty because they can't afford health care, because the minimum wage is not a living wage, because they're forced to work multiple jobs to make ends meet, because they can't afford housing. The US has no public health system, so people, particularly those unemployed or on lower wages, often cannot afford treatment or life-saving medication, such as insulin (Prasad 2019).

How about Philippines? An incredibly poor nation that was 'liberated' by the United States following centuries of Spanish colonisation. The Philippines economy is based on the US model: user-pays for health and education, with no social safety net for the unemployed. Many Filipinos are unable to find work, let alone cover the costs of education and health. But hey, they're not communists.

What about countries like Great Britain, Canada, Australia, Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland, Japan? These are social democracies, not exclusively capitalist. They have taken some of the elements of socialism in order to temper the excesses and self-gratification of capitalism to ensure that even the poor can benefit from universal health care, public education, welfare, public housing. These countries are far more economically stable than the United States, with a much lower rate of poverty. Former Australian Prime Minister, Paul Keating, described the benefits of social democracy, when he stated, 'Social democratic states very properly have another objective: to guarantee that working people are able to enjoy a living wage, one that lifts them and their families above the poverty line. This can take the form of a legislated minimum or a basic award but, in whatever form, it provides the foundation of a civil society. We should always remember that the point of economic policy is economic wealth and social progress. It should never be about top-end wealth provided off the back of an army of working poor, denied the kind of wages and conditions that are conducive to the sustenance of families' (Keating 2008).

Socialism saves the day.

Capitalism is a highly exploitative ideology. The old anarchist saying, 'Property is theft', is self-evident in the exploitative supply chains of almost every product and service consumed in the modern world. As Marx stated, 'Accumulation of wealth at one pole is, therefore, at the same time accumulation of misery, agony of toil slavery, ignorance, brutality, mental degradation, at the opposite pole, i.e., on the side of the class that produces its own product in the form of capital' (Marx 1887, p. 451).

Today there are more than 40 million people in modern slavery. This is more people in slavery than at any point in history. The main differences between modern slavery and traditional slavery are that under traditional slavery, legal ownership of slaves was asserted, there was a high purchase cost, limited sources of potential slaves, slaves were kept for the long term, they were maintained by their owners, and their cultural/ethnic differences were important because owners did not want slaves who looked like them. Today, slavery is illegal everywhere in the world, so ownership of slaves is denied, yet there is no shortage of slaves as they can be of any cultural or ethnic background, so purchase price is very low. They are kept for the short or long term, and they are disposable as they are just one more resource to be consumed and disposed of in the capitalist system. 

Remember back in the day, when HR departments were called 'Personnel'. At some point, it was realised that people were just commodities, resources, a line on a balance sheet. 'Personnel' was replaced by 'Human Resources' and workforces became expendable in the pursuit of 'efficiency' ... whatever that is. Companies off-shored their workforces to lower cost countries where they could exploit vulnerable people who were trapped in poverty - remember the Philippines mentioned earlier? Because of the high cost of necessities and the difficulty securing work, people will often allow themselves to be exploited so that they can pay the bills and put their children through education. This drives the spiralling increase in modern slavery. Welcome to capitalism. 

Off-shoring, coupled with casualisation of employment drives the shrinking of domestic workforces, resulting in higher unemployment, lower wages growth and ultimately to many businesses unable to survive because of uncertainty, job insecurity and lack of disposable income in their customer base. In other words, capitalism is eating itself.

Sociologist, Pierre Bourdieu called this out in his criticism of economic globalisation and labelled the casualisation of the workforce as being 'flexploitation', while today's proletariat has been referred to as the 'precariat', because of their insecure employment, unstable income and unsustainable debt (Nolan & Boersma 2019, p. 27).

Many people equate capitalism with freedom, yet for many it is slavery, exploitation, poverty. The working class, the proletariat, are enslaved to the industrialists who own the means of production, the private property. Engels wrote, 'The slave frees himself when, of all the relations of private property, he abolishes only the relation of slavery and thereby becomes a proletarian; the proletarian can free himself only by abolishing private property in general' (Engels 1847).

Yes, some people will prosper in a capitalist economy, but it is often at the expense of someone else. Capitalism does not represent freedom. The US and the UK have propped up many a fascist government because it served capitalist ideology, including the Shah of Iran, Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, Suharto, Pinochet and so on; not blinking an eye at the millions killed or tortured. Capitalism is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

The private ownership of the means of production is increasingly in the hands of larger corporations and fewer people. A recent study found that the richest 1% in the US has gained $21 trillion since 1989, while more than half of the nation lost almost a trillion dollars and owns less than nothing because they owe more than they own (Johnson 2019).

Today's capitalism is empowered by the public policy of neoliberalism. Former Australian Reserve Bank governor, Bernie Fraser, describes neoliberalism as favouring 'the market system ahead of the state system, and individual interests ahead of community interests, [which] can lead to profoundly unfair social outcomes' (Nolan & Boersma 2019, p. 28). 

The solution to the world's environmental and economic woes is socialism on a global scale. While corporations own the means of production, people and the environment will continue to be exploited, to be just another disposable resource. Anthropogenic causes of climate change can be better controlled and reduced through a socialist system that values people and the environment, that doesn't rely on over-consumption and the production of unnecessary levels of commodities that end up in land-fill.

And then there's the future of employment. Digital disruption, the rise of artificial intelligence, automation and robotics. Reports suggest up to 40% of could be lost in the next 15 years, through automation (Reisinger 2019). This is a trajectory that will likely continue to increase rather than decrease. Some people will be retrained, but there will be many others who simply do not have the education, skills or opportunities to find work suitable for them, resulting more unemployed and unemployable people, increasing poverty rates. One solution may be a universal basic wage, which some countries, such as Finland, are trialling ... socialism saving the day. Or another solution is to go full-blown Communism and replace monetary systems with the Marxist ideal of enough products available to meet everyone's needs without the need for money. Our robot overlords could utilise AI and big data analytics to forecast needs in each part of the world and ensure manufacturing and services meet those needs.

But back to the original question about naming a successful socialist country. This question presupposes that socialist countries are successful in their own right as stand-alone economies. However, Marx specifically stated that socialism would not succeed in one country alone. The world has not seen true Marxism in action, apart from the initial years following the Russian Revolution and even that was hampered by war and the inheritance of a weak economy, then usurped by Stalinism.

Many of the countries who tried socialism or communism, failed because of their inability to implement processes that would enable transition to a communist state. Many of these communist revolutions occurred in economies that were already weakened by corrupt and exploitative governments. It was obviously futile to expect that a new economic model could simply be dropped over the existing systems and immediately turn them around. Additionally, those economies which lasted for many years were operating a form of Stalinism, that had little to do with true communism.

It's not Marxism that failed, but the implementation of it and the betrayal of its basic principles by many of those who claimed revolution in its name. 

To truly understand if socialism can succeed, requires an internationalist base in which socialist states are able to operate openly and freely. But capitalism won't allow that as it is founded in avarice and selfishness, driven by vested interests. Capitalism is not democratic, it is plutocratic. Communism, true Marxist communism, is the epitome of democracy, with workers ruling, their labour truly valued.

The rise of populist parties and politicians is a response to the exploitative practices of capitalism, which has seen low wages growth, rising unemployment and erosion of democracy. Unfortunately, many of these parties and politicians are right-wing and have used this discontent and fear to scapegoat minorities, fomenting racism and bigotry, so that the discontented blame the victims of exploitation, rather than the exploiters. The main-stream media is owned by oligarchs with vested interests in controlling government, so they push the agenda of turning workers against workers.

Nothing attracts the fearful like identity politics; having a party that 'identifies' with their particular race, religion, nationality or creed. It is the same psychology that attracts people to gangs; the sense of belonging, the security created by expressing those fears, bigotry and narrow-mindedness with like-minded people. Ironically, many of those who support these populist parties blame socialism for class-based differences, while it is the conservative, capitalist parties that are dividing society along identity lines. Populism has turned workers against each other, allowing the rich to continue exploiting them unchecked.

Capitalists and their media mouth-pieces continue to demonise socialism and communism by equating them with Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot and Kim Jong-Un. It is not that capitalists are opposed to the terrible human rights abuses under these despots, particularly when one looks at the human rights abuses that capitalist regimes have and continue to perpetrate. Instead, the horrendous crimes of Stalin, Mao and Jung-Un serve capitalist obfuscation very well for scaring workers away from Marxism (Woods 2017). Driven by power and greed, capitalism is more closely aligned to Stalinism and Maoism, then is the equal rights, democracy and economic sharing model espoused by Marx and Engels. Not that capos want you to know that. Stalin was very effective at deception, obfuscation and denunciation, similar to the capitalist propaganda that has demonised Marxism for decades. Marxism is a long way removed from Stalinism.

Marxist parties have an opportunity to increase their popularity by explaining the benefits of socialism and communism and addressing the fear-mongering and lies that right-wing parties have been spreading. Once workers understand who the real threat is to their livelihoods, then maybe we can see a communist revolution in which people across the globe replace corrupt capitalist systems to work together towards a global communist community committed to improving social conditions, implementing truly democratic systems of society and production, ending exploitation, treating everyone equally, and valuing the environment.

Someone once stated, 'Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires'.

Only when workers understand the rotten core of capitalism that exploits them, will we realise the inherent success of communism. 

To paraphrase Marx's classic statement from The Communist Manifesto, 'Workers of the world have nothing to lose, but their chains. Workers of the world, unite'.

Capitalism, Socialism and Communism

References

Abbesi, S 2019, 'British government killed 10 million Iranians in 1919', Geopolitics, 12 July, viewed 8 October 2019, https://geopolitics.co/2019/07/12/british-government-killed-10-million-iranians-in-1919.

Blum, W 2004, Killing Hope: US Military Interventions and CIA Interventions since World War II, Common Courage Press, Monroe ME.

Carillo, P 2016, 'How today’s crisis in Venezuela was created by Hugo Chávez’s ‘revolutionary’ plan', The Conversation, 6 July, viewed 6 October 2019, https://theconversation.com/how-todays-crisis-in-venezuela-was-created-by-hugo-chavezs-revolutionary-plan-61474.

CBS News 2019, 'UAW strike could cost GM up to $100 million per day', 17 September 2019, viewed 4 October 2019, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gm-strike-uaw-strike-could-cost-gm-up-to-100-million-per-day/

Cooley, J 2002, Unholy Wars - Afghanistan, America and International Terrorism, 3rd edn, Pluto Press, Sterling VA.

Davies, N 2015, 'Vietnam 40 years on: how a communist victory gave way to capitalist corruption', The Guardian, 22 April, viewed 29 October 2019, https://www.theguardian.com/news/2015/apr/22/vietnam-40-years-on-how-communist-victory-gave-way-to-capitalist-corruption.

Engels, F 1847, The Principles of Communism, Selected Works, Volume One, p. 81-97, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1969, translated Paul Sweezy, https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm.

Foran, J 2009, Theorizing the Cuban Revolution, Latin American Perspectives, Issue 165, Vol. 36(2), pp. 16-30.

Grant, T 1941, 'Why USSR is suffering reverses - Internationalism has been abandoned', Socialist Appeal, Vol. 4, No. 1, October 1941, http://tedgrant.org/archive/grant/1941/10/ussr-internationalism.htm.

Hiley, S 2018, 'Abolition of private property?', 4 January, viewed 27 October 2019, https://www.cpusa.org/interact_cpusa/the-father-of/.

Johnson, J 2019, ''Eye-Popping': Analysis Shows Top 1% Gained $21 Trillion in Wealth Since 1989 While Bottom Half Lost $900 Billion', 14 June, viewed 5 October 2019, https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/06/14/eye-popping-analysis-shows-top-1-gained-21-trillion-wealth-1989-while-bottom-half.

Keating, P 2008, 'Financial Innovation and Labour Reform in the Post Industrial Age', presented at Chosun Ilbo—Asian Leadership Conference, Seoul, South Korea, 21 February 2008, viewed 2 November 2019, http://www.keating.org.au/shop/item/financial-innovation-and-labour-market-reform-in-the-post-industrial-age---21-february-2008.

Kiyosaki, R 2019, 'Rich Dad Fundamentals: Other People’s Money (OPM)', 14 May, viewed 4 October 2019, https://www.richdad.com/other-peoples-money-real-estate.

Klayman, B & Shumaker, L 2019, 'GM CEO Barra's pay dipped slightly to just under $22 million in 2018', Reuters, 19 April, viewed 2 November 2019, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-gm-compensation/gm-ceo-barras-pay-dipped-slightly-to-just-under-22-million-in-2018-idUSKCN1RU2AY.

Marx, K 1848, The Communist Manifesto, Melbourne School of Continental Philosophy, https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Manifesto.pdf.

Marx, K 1887, Capital - A critique of political economy, Volume 1, Progress Publishers, Moscow, Russia, https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Capital-Volume-I.pdf.

Nolan, J & Boersma, M 2019, Addressing Modern Slavery, UNSW Press, Sydney.

Nove, A 1987, Socialism, Economics and Development, Allen & Unwin, London.

Pilger, J 2003, New rulers of the world, Verso Trade.

Prasad, R 2019, 'The human cost of insulin', BBC News, 14 March, viewed 2 November 2019,
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47491964.

Reisinger, D 2019, 'A.I. expert says automation could replace 40% of jobs in 15 years', Fortune, 10 January, viewed 30 November 2019, https://fortune.com/2019/01/10/automation-replace-jobs/.

Serge, V 1930, Year One of the Russian Revolution, Victor Serge Internet Archive (marxists.org) 2005, Translation, editor’s Introduction, and notes © 1972 by Peter Sedgwick, https://www.marxists.org/archive/serge/1930/year-one/index.htm

Stephanson, A. 1984, Feasible Socialism: A Conversation with Alec Nove, Social Text, Vol. 11, pp. 96-109.

Tharoor, S 2017, Inglorious Empire: what the British did to India, Scribe Publications, London.

Thornton, M 2017, 'What caused the Irish potato famine?', Mises Institute, 17 March, viewed 8 October 2019, https://mises.org/library/what-caused-irish-potato-famine.

Trotsky, L 1906, The Permanent Revolution & Results and Prospects, transcribed for the Trotsky Internet Archive by Sally Ryan 1996, viewed 5 October 2019, https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1931/tpr/pr10.htm

Woods, A 2017, 'What the Russian Revolution achieved and why it degenerated', 27 January, viewed 20 October 2019, https://www.bolshevik.info/what-the-russian-revolution-achieved-and-why-it-degenerated.htm. 

Updated 30 November 2019

Guns don't kill people ... angry, fearful people with guns kill people

Guns don't kill people ... angry, fearful people with guns kill people


When news breaks of a mass shooting event at a school, no-one asks which country. We all know that odds are it will be the United States. And so it was on 17 February 2018, when the world was horrified to learn of yet another massacre at a school in the United States. The school was Marjory Stoneham Douglas in Florida where a white nationalist, Nicholas Cruz used an AR-15 to murder 17 students.

Immediately after the massacre, President Donald Trump ruled out tightening gun control legislation, but instead said that people should report suspicious people to the authorities. Cruz had been reported to authorities on at least 18 occasions, including two reports that he could shoot up a school, and police did nothing about him. One of Trump's other bright ideas was to arm teachers. Then it was revealed that the armed school deputy had hidden rather than draw his weapon on the gunman, and that there were four sheriff's deputies who hid behind cars rather than engage with the gunman⁽¹⁾. Why not just train soldiers to be teachers? Oh wait, there's been numerous massacres and mass casualties on military bases on US soil, including Fort Hood in 2009, that killed 13 people and wounded 32⁽²⁾.

Armed teachers? Great. When bullets start flying, people start running. The chances of a teacher shooting a child is going to escalate dramatically. When cops arrive and there are a dozen armed teachers running around, how the hell are the cops to know who is the active shooter that they need to stop?

Unlike many other school shootings, the students at Stoneham Douglas mobilised political rallies in Florida and Washington, demanding changes to gun legislation. The very powerful and morally bereft, National Rifle Association, pressured politicians from the President down to not change the laws. The NRA supposedly represents responsible gun owners, however, this is a rather dubious claim because what self-respecting, responsible gun owner would oppose any legislation that kept guns out of the hands of mass murderers? Nor do they wish to limit the damage that guns can do, such as banning bump stocks that convert some semi-automatics into full automatics, or limiting the magazine capacity of weapons, or even questioning why the hell anyone needs an assault-style rifle, such as the AR-15 which was used in this massacre ... and in the Sandy Hook school massacre that killed 26 people, including 20 children aged six and seven years old ... or the Las Vegas massacre on 1 October 2017, in which 59 people were killed and more than 850 wounded by a gunman using numerous guns, including AR-15s with 100-round magazines. AR-15s are designed for one thing: massacring humans. They are not designed for hunting animals, or for target shooting. They certainly are not designed for clay pigeon shooting. They are designed to shoot people and make sure those people do not survive. Shots from the AR-15 tear people's bodies apart; they do not leave neat little holes that might increase the likelihood of survival. Peter Rhee, a trauma surgeon with University of Arizona describes wounds from an AR-15 as 'looking like a grenade went off in there'.⁽³⁾

There are an estimated 265 million guns in the United States, which has a population of 323 million people, although only 30% of the population have guns. The average number of guns per gun owner is three, however, some only have one, while others have up to 140. Just 3% of America's gun owners hold 133 million guns, around half of America's personal arsenal.⁽⁴⁾ Many of these weapons are pistols which pwners claim they need them for self-defence. Others will argue they use their rifles for hunting. Considering there aren't too many stags walking down Broadway it begs the question about how much hunting some of these gun owners do.

It may come as a surprise, but the chances for most people of encountering a violent gun-related crime is small for most areas of the United States. Gun violence is very much geographically concentrated, with more than half of America's homicides occurring in 127 cities which account for less than a quarter of the national population, but people in those areas are up to 400 times more likely to encounter gun violence⁽⁴⁾. Even that is very much concentrated in small pockets of those cities. For instance, gun violence in Boston occurred in only 3% of its streets, while juvenile crime in Seattle occurred on only 5% of its streets(5). The chances of encountering situations where a person may feel the need to pull out a gun are small.

Self-defence? Then riddle me this: why are there almost seven times the number of firearm assaults in states with the most guns compared to those with the fewest? Gun-owners are twice as likely to be murdered as people without guns. Part of this issue is the mentality that owning a gun creates. Some gun-owners take greater risks, go to more dangerous places, thinking they are safe because they're 'packing heat'. The only thing being packed is them or their family members into body bags. So how many victims of assault used their guns for self-defence? Less than 1%. Instead, for every legal use of a firearm in the house, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides committed by someone in the home, and 11 attempted or completed suicides. Studies have shown that using a gun in self-defence is as effective as non-violent measures, such as calling for help. The NRA and gun-owners try to argue that if people want to be violent, they will be violent regardless of their access to guns. This is true, but as Scientific American reports, 'guns intensify violent encounters'. Remember the 'Stand Your Ground Laws' that legalised killing people in self-defence when they feel they are in danger, after George Zimmerman killed an unarmed black man, Trayvon Martin, because he felt scared? Since then, Florida's homicide rate has risen by around 25% and other states who have introduced similar legislation have experienced a sustained 8% increase in homicide rates. Mark Hoekstra of Texas A&M University pithily observed, 'we found that making it easier to kill people resulted in more dead people'.⁽⁵⁾

If guns made homes safer, then insurance premiums would go down rather than increase. One insurance broker's website states: 'The risks faced by your insurance company include wrongful death, bodily injury, property damage, and theft, among others. Since your gun adds considerable risk to your renters insurance, it also increases the rates significantly'⁽⁶⁾.

One of the mantras chanted by gun-owners is that 'guns don't kill people, people kill people'. No shit, Einstein. That's why we're calling for gun control; background checks, training, cooling-off periods and raising minimum ages. Pro-gun people completely remove guns from the equation in crime. In their myopic view, it would make no difference whether the perpetrator had a gun or a rolling pin. Yet, what the hell are firearms designed for? To give foot massages?

In 1994, assault-style weapons such as the AR-15 were banned until 2004. Pro-gunners argue it isn't an assault weapon as this is a military term, however, the legislation defined 'assault weapons' including rifles and pistols that were semi-automatic with detachable magazines and had at least two military-style features, such as bayonet mounts, flash suppressors, folding and telescopic stocks, amongst others⁽⁷⁾. Magazines that could hold more than 10 rounds were also banned. The legislators did not expect the ban to reduce gun crime per se, but to reduce the incidence of mass-shootings. So did it work? Damn straight it worked as shown in the below graph. In the ten years prior to the ban there were 19 incidents of mass shootings (defined as six or more deaths) with a total of 155 people killed. During the ban, mass shootings dropped to 12 with 89 deaths. In the ten years after the ban was lifted, there were 34 mass shootings with 302 deaths.⁽⁸⁾ But hey, according to NRA logic, rolling pins will kill as many people as an AR-15.

So what is the NRA solution to the school shootings? While the NRA is demonising the gun control argument, they are yet to propose a solution other than, 'a good guy with a gun stops a bad guy with a gun'.

Further to this good guy/bad guy garbage, some pro-gunners bang on about 'bad people kill people'. However, this idea of there being good people and bad people is founded in simplistic, puerile ideas of absolutism that fails to acknowledge context ... the kind of thinking that far too many Christians embrace ... and funnily enough, a lot of American gun-owners are Christian who sincerely believe that guns are a gift from God ... clearly skipping the entire New Testament ... oh, that's right Jesus said, 'pick your AR-15 and follow me'. There are bad people out there, however, everyone is prone to good and bad actions. Show me one person who has never had a bad day ... I'd love to meet that person. 'Good' people have bad days and 'good' people lose their shit. Let me repeat that: People. Lose. Their. Shit. And armed people losing their shit is not a place anyone wants to be near. People who are armed and having a particularly bad day are more likely to react by drawing their firearm and raining hell on the situation. As Scientific American identified, 'People, all of us, lead complicated lives, misinterpret situations, get angry, make mistakes. And when the mistake involves pulling a trigger, the damage can't be undone'⁽⁵⁾.

The NRA and pro-gun people justify their lack of legislative action by hiding behind the Second Amendment which they claim constitutionally protects their rights to 'bear arms'. This is one fraction of the Second Amendment and completely neglects the bit about 'well-regulated'. For your reading and researching convenience, the Second Amendment in its entirety reads as follows:

A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Let's unpack this in light of modern America.

• A well-regulated: passing laws, funnily enough, is the very essence of well-regulated
• Militia: sorry, but Mr & Mrs Jones running around the streets of Boston armed with a couple of .32 calibre pistols while looking for a lobster and avocado panini with pan-roasted forest mushrooms, does not constitute a freaking militia.
• being necessary to the security of a free state: Guess what? Now that America spends more per capita on its heavily armed Defence Force than any other nation, kind of negates any need for a militia to defend it. Oh, and if you're intending on over-throwing an oppressive regime based in Washington by facing down the world's biggest military after eating your lobster & avo panini with pan-roasted forest mushrooms ... yeah, good luck with that ... actually, thoughts and prayers are with you.
• the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed: the people ... the militia ...  yeah, kind of only if necessary for the security of the nation, otherwise this does not apply.

Sadly, the NRA has reinvented the Second Amendment to deny any recognition of what a well-regulated militia is or whether it is even necessary. 

When the Second Amendment was introduced, America did not have a formal defence force and was totally reliant on the militia. Oh, did I mention that this was at a time when firearms were just a basic musket that was flat out firing three rounds a minute (compared to your average AR-15 which pumps out 45 rounds a minute ... and more if a bump stock is fitted). Do people really think that armed dumb-asses stuck in traffic in their Cadillacs with Make America Great Again bumper stickers, thinking about that evening's episode of America's Got Talent, constitute a militia?

By the by, 'militia' is a collective noun. A militia is a group. It is not individuals roaming around the streets unregulated and armed to the hilt. The militia of which the Second Amendment speaks was in reference to the legislated civic duty of the time, that required every white male aged between 16 and 60 to have a gun. That is the well-regulated militia, they were compulsorily required to own and provide their own weapons for the defence of the land; it wasn't a choice. A preliminary text of the Second Amendment provided a definition of what the Founding Fathers considered a militia: 'A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms'^{(9, p. 379)}. Most people would agree that with America's significant military might, a body of the people is no longer the best security of a free state, therefore it is no longer necessary.

John Paul Stevens, a former associate justice of the Supreme Court points out that the Second Amendment was designed for two things: one was to arm the people for military purposes and the second to restrict federal control over weapons but not that of the States to regulate firearms. Stevens suggests that the Second Amendment could be clarified through the addition of five words: 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed'⁽¹⁰⁾

This may surprise many, but the individual right to gun ownership was only recognised in 2008, 217 years after the Second Amendment was passed⁽¹¹⁾. These individuals are not a militia and will never be called on to defend the nation with their own weapons ... if they are required to defend the nation, they will be conscripted into the military and provided with weapons by the defence force.

The pro-gunners continually portray gun control advocates as wanting to ban all guns, yet this is far from the truth. Most gun control advocates want ... wait for it ... gun control. In other words, they are not solely blaming the guns for killing people, they are blaming people having unfettered access to guns for killing people. The pro-gun mob are in complete denial over the impact of guns in violent situations. They have gone ostrich, sticking their heads in the sand, yet there is a clear correlation between guns and the massacres that we see in America. The common denominator in these massacres is guns. Sure if guns were completely banned, someone set on massacring others will find another way, but most other ways require a bit more planning and skill than grabbing a semi-automatic and unleashing hell on innocent people. 

Gun control people have been asking for changes to the law so that it is more difficult for irresponsible people to get hold of guns. Why would responsible gun owners be opposed to this? Some of things gun control advocates are asking for include:

• background checks
• mandatory safety courses
• mandatory licensing of gun owners
• raise the minimum age to at least 21 before people can buy firearms
• ban private sales of firearms
• ban sales of firearms at gun shows
• cooling off periods, so that someone can't just walk into a store and walk out 10 minutes later with a gun
• ban high capacity magazines; restrict magazine capacity to 10 rounds
• ban the bump stock that turns a semi-automatic weapon into a fully automatic one
• people with domestic violence convictions banned from holding firearms
• guns to be secured in safes at home
• ban assault-style rifles (again)

While assault-style rifles are in the minority of weapons, they do facilitate mass killings.

Of course, none of these measures will completely stop the over-representation of violent crime in the United States, but they may well reduce it. The pro-gunners argue that legislation makes no difference, yet, as can be seen in the following chart, deaths by guns are lower in those states with the strictest gun control legislation⁽¹²⁾.

Some of the infantile arguments against gun control made by the pro-gun mob include:

• cars kill more people and we don't ban cars ... we also restrict access to cars, people have to be a minimum age, undertake training and licensing, pay for registration and insurance, and driving under the influence is banned. We also don't let people drive Formula One cars on suburban streets, so why allow people to own assault-style weapons that have no place other than in the military. One could say that cars are 'well-regulated'.
• If we ban guns, they'll just buy them illegally ... sure ... so let's legalise all drugs because people are still using them, let's ditch homicide laws because people are still being murdered. We could save a heap of money on prisons by repealing all the laws that people break which put them there in the first place. Clearly laws don't work if there are still criminals, right?
• Video games are too violent ... right, and every other country plays these same games but don't feel led to massacre children sitting in an algebra class!

The right-wing wants to ban everything they dislike, such as abortion, birth control, marriage equality, refugees, anti-bullying programs, immigration, Islam, halal, burqas, left-wing media, books (e.g. Slaughterhouse Five for not being consistent with biblical teaching), rock music, equal rights ... but when it comes to restricting access to guns it's a resounding NO from many right-wingers who have a distorted sense of entitlement, patriotism and biblical values.

One of the scapegoats that pro-gunners blame for mass shootings is the mentally ill. Which is ironic, considering that it is the Republicans who have been defunding mental health programs, but that is another story. For the most part, it is not the mentally ill who have been responsible for the mass shootings ... it is .. get this ... angry people. Psychologist, Laura L. Hayes wrote in 2014 on the tenuous links between mental illness and mass shootings, and emphasised that there was much stronger evidence to link poor anger management with violence and in particular, mass shootings. Hayes identifies that this violent anger is caused by a chronically suppressed rage.⁽¹³⁾

The modern United States is an angry nation. It is factionalised by an 'us and them' mentality that demonises people based on race, religion, nationality, gender, sexual orientation and wealth. It demonises the poor and refuses anything that might represent a welfare state. 

The United States of today is one in which individualism is highly-valued over that of the community. This individualism is neurotically tied to the idea of freedom and that owning firearms is the greatest expression of freedom ... even if it comes at the price of thousands of dead school-children. The USA is riddled with a neurosis that is driven by greed and selfishness, manifesting as an extreme paranoia of the 'other' coming to take their things away. It is a neurosis that has been caused by the extreme form of capitalism that only America embraces. It is a capitalism that sees any form of sharing as being communism. Welfare payments to ensure people can eat? Communism! Universal health-care so that everyone, rich or poor, can receive medical treatment? Communism! Public education? Communism. Taxation? 'That's sharing wealth, you dirty Commo!' Raise the minimum wage so that the working poor aren't forced to work three or four jobs? 'Fuck you, Jack - price of my coffee ain't gonna go up to help someone else! That's communism, you pinko snowflake'! 

Yep, anger. Anger against those who might take away their precious 'freedom', which is really only their belongings purchased through their consumerist indulgence and an anger that comes from a perceived competition with the neighbours; 'keeping up with the Jones's' drives much of the ludicrous competition that causes stress and anger in many Americans.

America's extreme form of capitalism does not allow for empathy or compassion. And we wonder why this selfishness and fear exhibits itself through anger and paranoia that results in mass shootings of innocent people. It's the hate speech and exclusionism of populist politics that is empowering people to shoot up schools and crowds.

Gun control is only one small step in reducing deaths from guns. There are three profound issues that need to be addressed for long-term change in the United States:

• anger
• fear
• hate

America needs anger management, this in itself will help resolve much of the violent crime. 

America needs to overcome its fear; it's fear of the other, fear of loss, fear of communism, fear of sharing. This is a nation that houses some very fearful people ... and they're armed to the teeth with firearms.

America needs to overcome its hate. It is a nation that is still largely segregated by race and religion. It is a nation that illustrates the huge disparity between the haves and the have-nots. Interestingly, most mass shootings are perpetrated by the haves, the privileged members of white America⁽¹⁴⁾... illustrating the power of fear that comes of greed and selfishness.

However, to truly overcome these horrendous mass murders, America needs empathy, sharing, caring, a spirit in which the good of the community is valued more than the individual, more than selfishness and greed.

Sylvester McNutt, a former high-flying type from corporate America who became a best-selling author of motivational books, may have inadvertently nailed the solution, when he wrote:

'Everyone is so focused on acting savage, busy, and heartless these days. Meanwhile, I'm searching for the humans that believe in compassion, love, and human connection'. 

References

1. New York Post, Ruth Brown, Four sheriff's deputies hid during Florida shooting, 23 February 2018, https://nypost.com/2018/02/23/four-sheriffs-deputies-hid-during-florida-school-shooting/. Accessed 3 March 2018.

2. Ranker, Mike Rothschild, Complete list of US military base shootings,
https://www.ranker.com/list/military-base-shooting/mike-rothschild. Accessed 3 March 2018.

3. The New Yorker, John Cassidy, America's failure to protect its children from school shootings is a national disgrace, 15 February 2018,  https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/americas-failure-to-protect-its-children-from-school-shootings-is-a-national-disgrace-parkland-florida. Accessed 3 March 2018.

4. The Guardian, Lois Beckett, The gun numbers: just 3% of Americans own a collective 133m firearms, 15 November 2017, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/nov/15/the-gun-numbers-just-3-of-american-adults-own-a-collective-133m-firearms. Accessed 3 March 2018.

5. Scientific American, Melinda Wenner Moyer, More guns do not stop more crimes, evidence shows, 1 October 2017, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/more-guns-do-not-stop-more-crimes-evidence-shows/. Accessed 22 February 2018.

6. US Insurance Agents, Does owning a gun impact my renter's insurance quotes?, 10 February 2014,  https://usinsuranceagents.com/answers/2557/does-owning-a-gun-impact-my-renters-insurance-quotes. Accessed 3 March 2018.

7. United States Congress, H.R.3355 - Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994,     https://www.congress.gov/bill/103rd-congress/house-bill/3355/text. Accessed 3 March 2018.

8. Washington Post, Christopher Ingraham, The real reason Congress banned assault weapons in 1994 - and why it worked, 22 February 2018,   https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/02/22/the-real-reason-congress-banned-assault-weapons-in-1994-and-why-it-worked. Accessed 3 March 2018.

9. Walker, D.J., 2016. Necessary to the security of free states: the Second Amendment as the auxiliary right of federalism. American Journal of Legal History, 56(4), pp.365–391.

10. The Washington Post, John Paul Stevens, The five extra words that can fix the Second Amendment, 11 April 2014, https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-five-extra-words-that-can-fix-the-second-amendment/2014/04/11/f8a19578-b8fa-11e3-96ae-f2c36d2b1245_story.html?utm_term=.157605148899. Accessed 3 March 2018.

11. Politico Magazine, Michael Waldman, How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment, 19 May 2014, https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-second-amendment-106856. Accessed 3 March 2018.

12. SafeHome.org, Gun Laws v Gun Deaths, https://www.safehome.org/resources/gun-laws-and-deaths/. Accessed 3 March 2018.

13. Slate, Laura L. Hayes, How to Stop Violence. Mentally ill people aren't killers. Angry people are. 9 April 2014.    http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2014/04/anger_causes_violence_treat_it_rather_than_mental_illness_to_stop_mass_murder.html. Accessed 3 March 2018. 

14. New York Times, Daniel Victor, Mass shooters are all different. Except for one thing: Most are men, 17 February 2018, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/17/us/mass-murderers.html. Accessed 3 March 2018.