Disastrous utopia

TownHall.com ^ | 12/05/02 | Thomas Sowell

[Sam Cree]

OK, I'm not really that knowledgable about fascism.

I do know that Hitler courted and relied on the industrialists and elites to gain power, but that once he became "fuehrer," they were all under his thumb.

However I am not much up to speed how much of a challenge the elite could have mounted against Mussolini.

I note that the definitions we are throwing around here imply that a state run by corporations could be termed "fascist," though, in theory, corporations are a good example of democracy, as they are publicly owned.

[Sabertooth]

So according to you a people on a fertile land would have no reason to migrate away from it, and a people on an infertile land would not be able to migrate to a more fertile region.

No, quite the opposite. In the pre-industrial era, and even afterwards, outward expansions were often fueled by increasing populations in fertile regions.

More food = increased populations = bigger armies.

It's not an absolute rule, but it's a useful generalization.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that I don't believe in European migrations. I'm just unconvinced they were as you believe them to have been.

Not ruling it out, mind you, but I haven't found the evidence I've seen to be compelling.

[VadeRetro]

You're the one that says Communism makes the ground become infertile. I'd like to know how this works.

I'd like to know at what point on what thread anyone said any such thing to you. I can link where I said specifically that the ground remained fertile. Your tactics are completely self-discrediting.

[Willie Green]

in theory, corporations are a good example of democracy, as they are publicly owned.

In practice, they're largely a form of absentee ownership, negating the responsibilities that usually accompany ownership rights.

[Republic of Texas]

Try talking parents into "giving" that much to other people's kids, and the family socialistic unit falls apart. They will selfishly only give like that to their own kids.

[Republic of Texas]

Unfortunately TJ, that would #3.

[Billthedrill]

For those who might be reading more into Sowell's choice of the words "good idea," than he intended, I'd recommend one of his first really good works on the subject, MARXISM. Sowell is another entry in a log list of intellectual luminaries who started out as Marxist true believers and step by step came to utterly reject that very seductive set of illusions.

Marxism, like any utopian model of thought, begins with the observation that there is injustice and inequity in society, proposes a system model of how that society works, and claims that, assuming the accuracy of the model, changing one component or more (or trying a completely different model) will address the injustice and inequity. Only the first point is actually demonstrable. That the model (in fact, I would argue no model) actually describes how society functions in any relevant detail is not only undemonstrable, it is highly conjectural, yet it is the key in this chain of reasoning. If the descriptive model is unsound, transitioning it to a normative model certainly will be, and so with Marxism.

It comes as no surprise to anyone who's made even a cursory study of Marxism that authoritarianism and tyranny are an integral part of the "transition" to full socialism, first on the part of the party, then on the part of the planners. Marx erred in projecting his hope that the state would, in his terms, "wither away" in favor of the high fantasy of a "dictatorship of the proletariat" which even in his model would be laughably unworkable. In practice that transition never happens. The excuse is that it cannot until the entire world is under socialism; the truth is that it cannot, period.

[Sam Cree]

"In practice, they're largely a form of absentee ownership"

I have to admit that I, for one, never bother sending in my proxies. But the right does exist, after all. Actually, I believe institutions, as large stockholders, wield quite an influence with boards of directors. Still, the little guys could vote if they wanted. Agreed they don't, though.

[Willie Green]

Still, the little guys could vote if they wanted. Agreed they don't, though.

And as you noted, it doesn't exactly follow the principle of "One man, one vote."

[#3Fan]

No, quite the opposite. In the pre-industrial era, and even afterwards, outward expansions were often fueled by increasing populations in fertile regions.

So a sparsely populated land would be more attractive and there would be a western movement because of this. You finally admit that the more western lands did hold attractions as compared to the Ukraine.

More food = increased populations = bigger armies. It's not an absolute rule, but it's a useful generalization. I'm not sure where you got the idea that I don't believe in European migrations. I'm just unconvinced they were as you believe them to have been.

You said a people in the Ukraine would have no reason to move west.

Not ruling it out, mind you, but I haven't found the evidence I've seen to be compelling.

Maybe someday, if you look real hard with an open mind, you'll find evidence that there were major migrations in Europe up until the middle ages (and beyond, really, when you consider American immigration).

[#3Fan]

I'd like to know at what point on what thread anyone said any such thing to you. I can link where I said specifically that the ground remained fertile. Your tactics are completely self-discrediting.

You said that the Soviet Union was exporting grain to Britain. Unfortunately you posted this at the same time that Saber posted that Communism causes food shortages in fertile regions. So you changed your story and said that Communism does cause food shortages in fertile regions. So why did you say that the Soviet Union were exporters of food, and then change your story after Saber posted?

[Cacique]

Thomas Sowell bump

[Sabertooth]

So a sparsely populated land would be more attractive and there would be a western movement because of this. You finally admit that the more western lands did hold attractions as compared to the Ukraine.

I don't know how you got your first statement from anything I've said, nor how you got your second statement from the first.

Wouldn't it depend on why the land was sparsely populated? Was it harsh? Barren? Or just undiscovered?

You said a people in the Ukraine would have no reason to move west.

No, never. You should stick to the meanings of the words people are actually using, rather than trying to guess between the lines. You said on another thread that Assyrians were Germans because Pliny said that there were Assyrians North of the Black Sea (in what is now the Ukraine). I pointed out that Germany wasn't North of the Black Sea, not then, not now.

You also made the claim that the Assyrians left the Ukraine in search of better farmland in Germany. It was pointed out to you that the farmland is actually better in the Ukraine, so that couldn't have been a reason for them leaving, if in fact the Assyrians ever got to Germany.

Maybe someday, if you look real hard with an open mind, you'll find evidence that there were major migrations in Europe up until the middle ages (and beyond, really, when you consider American immigration).

More mischaracterizations.

I said on the other thread that at various times, people have moved North, South, East, and West... all over the map. Of course people moved around in Europe, as they did elsewhere. What I also said, with an open mind, was that you hadn't proven that the Lost Tribes of Israel were the Celts. This was because of the quality of your evidence, not because my mind wasn't opened.

The reason I pinged you here is because on that thread you appeared to be unfamiliar with the adverse effect of collective farming on agricultural production. I'm not sure why you didn't know this, so I posted links for you on that thread.

When this article came to my attention, I recalled your earlier lack of information on this particular matter.

[VadeRetro]

You said that the Soviet Union was exporting grain to Britain.

Absolutely not! Your squirmy dishonesty is killing you. You should renounce as a debating tactic all attempts at deliberate mischaracterization. You have too much trouble seeing the lines.

Here I told you that England used to, and I put the emphasis on "used to," import wheat from Russia. Note that I specifically said "Russia," not "the Soviet Union," and I'm clearly not referring to the USSR buying wheat from the US in the 60s and 70s because I'm answering you on that point.

Here I more specifially said that Russia was a food exporter in czarist times.

Time. Czarist time: food exporter. Communist time: food importer.

Are you going to pretend you don't know what the words mean? Hard to put a good face on this.

[VadeRetro]

So you changed your story and said that Communism does cause food shortages in fertile regions.

You may have have changed your misinterpretation, that's all.

[Protagoras]

I agree, and the fact that it doesn't seem to bother most folks, even those here, is the most troubling thing of all.

[VadeRetro]

You're the one that says Communism makes the ground become infertile. I'd like to know how this works.

This statement remains unsupported.

[#3Fan]

I don't know how you got your first statement from anything I've said, nor how you got your second statement from the first.

So we're back to saying there's no reason to migrate and therefore migrations didn't take place?

Wouldn't it depend on why the land was sparsely populated? Was it harsh? Barren? Or just undiscovered?

You tell me. I said the land was better. There are more aspects of land other than fertility that makes a land better. You can see no redeeming qualities of the land in France, Germany, and Britain as compared to the Ukraine?

No, never. You should stick to the meanings of the words people are actually using, rather than trying to guess between the lines. You said on another thread that Assyrians were Germans because Pliny said that there were Assyrians North of the Black Sea (in what is now the Ukraine). I pointed out that Germany wasn't North of the Black Sea, not then, not now.

No, I said that I believe that the Germans may be descended from the Assyrians that lived north of the Black Sea. Pliny simply confirmed that they were there. There are several reasons that I think Germans may be descended from the Assyrians, but not on the sole fact that Pliny said there was a city-state in the north of the Black Sea area. Pliny's statements are simply historical circumstancial evidence that it makes it possible. I believe that the Assyrians migrated west along with the the other groups that moved west. Separate but together. That's what started this argument, you said that there was no reason for the Assyrians to move west. For whatever reason the Goths and Vandals moved west, the Assyrians did too, more to the south though.

You also made the claim that the Assyrians left the Ukraine in search of better farmland in Germany. It was pointed out to you that the farmland is actually better in the Ukraine, so that couldn't have been a reason for them leaving, if in fact the Assyrians ever got to Germany.

There are more things than fertility that make a land better farmland. Maybe population density, trade routes, access to rivers, access to the North Sea or to Roman civilization. For whatever reason, it did happen. What's important is that there were migrations and there must've been a reason.

I said on the other thread that at various times, people have moved North, South, East, and West... all over the map. Of course people moved around in Europe, as they did elsewhere. What I also said, with an open mind, was that you hadn't proven that the Lost Tribes of Israel were the Celts. This was because of the quality of your evidence, not because my mind wasn't opened.

I don't care if you believe it or not. You and your two buddies decided to disrupt a conversation between like-minded people and so we've been going at it ever since. You seem more interested in changing my mind than anything. Ain't gonna happen. It doesn't matter what is shown to you, you'd never believe it. Or you don't want to believe it. You said that relic words would be a good indication. When I showed you relic words and even entire phrases that matched, you ignored that, got quiet until you thought of the fertility thing saying that a people wouldn't migrate off a fertile land. I would've thought that if you actually had an open mind you would've acknowledged the information you asked me a hundred times for. Now that you're starting to see that there may be migrations from fertile lands, you'll get quiet again until you can think of another stumblingblock. Who do you think is in the wrong in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, by the way?

The reason I pinged you here is because on that thread you appeared to be unfamiliar with the adverse effect of collective farming on agricultural production. I'm not sure why you didn't know this, so I posted links for you on that thread.

Gee thanks. I never realized that a communist system is a bad economic system. I feel so much more enlightened now. /sarcasm

When this article came to my attention, I recalled your earlier lack of information on this particular matter.

No, the problem I had with your theories was that the Ukraine was abandoned or people actually didn't try to farm it. I find that hard to believe.

[#3Fan]

Absolutely not! Your squirmy dishonesty is killing you. You should renounce as a debating tactic all attempts at deliberate mischaracterization. You have too much trouble seeing the lines. Here I told you that England used to, and I put the emphasis on "used to," import wheat from Russia. Note that I specifically said "Russia," not "the Soviet Union," and I'm clearly not referring to the USSR buying wheat from the US in the 60s and 70s because I'm answering you on that point. Here I more specifially said that Russia was a food exporter in czarist times. Time. Czarist time: food exporter. Communist time: food importer. Are you going to pretend you don't know what the words mean? Hard to put a good face on this.

Calm down. I think your overreaction on this post shows your frustration at being wrong about everything else.

You said a there was no way a people desended from semitic-speaking people could be north of the Caucasus because there's no relic words. Wrong, I showed you hundreds of them and even entire phrases. You didn't know that the Assyrians relocated the Northern Tribes farther east. I had to explain everything to you from Pliny to latin. You are not very well informed on this issue. When I get in a discussion about this issue, I only like to discuss it with people that have some knowledge on it. You're main point that you kept bleating about was even wrong because you didn't know there were relic words. Then you wouldn't accept that there were migrations because you saw no reason for a people to move off a fertile land.

[#3Fan]

You may have have changed your misinterpretation, that's all.

So how much did grain production fall off from 1917 to 1930?