From: cher@ksr.com (Mike Cherepov)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Industrialization
Date: 6 Jan 93 21:41:47 EST
Organization: Kendall Square Research Corp.

> A mischaracterization of my position. Mike, can't you get it through your
> head that it is possible to reject the demon theory of communism without
> being an apologist for Stalin?

This concept has penetrated my head a long time ago.  Methodologically,
I do not see that much difference between us: each thinks that the
other one misinterprets the evidence because of an ideological slant.
While I don't have a "demon" theory of communism, I think that one
gets on an ideological tightrope (high beam, perhaps) trying to
disentangle its successes from its failure and crimes.  Someone
pointing out that Mussolini made trains run on time, and Hitler
stopped inflation faces similar problems vis-a-vis fascism.

It is quite clear that you can perform on this high beam without
falling, but I believe that you are leaning noticeably.  The same
analogy applies to evaluations of, say, laissez-faire capitalism,
where I also fancy myself to be in better balance than you - a
simple disagreement, not Luke Skywalker battling the Dark Side.

>  9 of those countries were either humorous examples or insignificant.
> the 10th is terra incognito for both of us. 

There is nothing insignificant about them.  When the 20-century
Swedish socialism was doing well, the left in the West thought
the Swedish experience to be extremely significant.  Singapore
is small, but its recipes are widely emulated as Lee Quan Yu is
touring Asia to tell others how it's done.  Horrible crimes were
not necessary to industrialize, ideas are infectious, and Russia
had reasonable models to emulate by 1925.
The argument from ignorance in case of Germany is not convincing.
If the German and Austrian industrialization-time crimes were
"horrible", we would know.  The trusty Columbia History of the
World, edited by Garraty and Gay, written by a bunch of Columbia
professors, Harper and Row, copyright 1972, dull respectability
reified, mentions no horrible crimes.

> [much stuff is skipped to keep some focus, rebuttals on demand]
> Look, you claimed that political rights were dropping on the happy
> workers of industrializing England. I point out that during the critical
> early period of industrial development there were armed insurrections,
> troops guarding factories, draconian bans on union activity, and 
> censorship of political tracts. I realize that this conflicts with
> your scenario of capitalism lifting the benighted peasantry from 
> poverty into nice apartments; But what can I do? That's how it happened.

First, I disagree categorically with your assessment of which
period is "critical" for this discussion.  Recall that Britain was
brought up by you in connection with Stalin's industrialization to
show that "horrible crimes" were a rule.  But Stalin's USSR was
a whole lot closer to mid-19th century Britain than to the period
you insist be used (a good metric is percentage of urban population,
about 25% for the start of Stalin's rule, and, I think, about the
same for Britain of 1850s).  So the right period in British history
for this comparison (which you insisted on) is the second half of
19th century (the middle phase of British industrialization) when
both the standard of living and the political rights for the British
working classes have undeniably improved.  You lose.

Secondly, you still show no appreciation that your claim (that no
nation industrialized without horrible crimes) requires that these
crimes increase during industrialization.  Otherwise you might as well
say that no nation went through an extended period of history without
deeds that are horrible crimes to modern sensibilities and make union
bans look like child's play.  But that would be merely fatuous.

	Mike Cherepov