Pharyngula

Posted by: Glen Davidson | November 9, 2009 11:15 AM

At the least the Communists don't forget the evils that economic stratification and blatant inequities cause, although I don't know that they really "reach out to the poor, the oppressed, the imprisoned." Then again, who does?

So yeah, they need to be heard. Who's going to speak about the gross injustices sanctified by our laws, Obama?

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

Posted by: ellenjanuary | November 9, 2009 11:25 AM

Can't say much about communism other than I don't understand how it could possibly work, nor have I ever heard of any of these people before last night; but I did bookmark the woman's site after reading a few pages. I liked what she had to say and I liked the way she said it.

Was there drama? Man, when is there not drama? Scales weighed, lady wins, case closed. Next! ;)

Posted by: Abdul Alhazred | November 9, 2009 11:31 AM

[blockquote]One of the things I do admire about the Communists is that they do reach out to the poor, the oppressed, the imprisoned ...[/blockquote]

Bait and switch. It's like religious apologetics.

How much "reaching out" makes up for all the mass murder?

It's the only ideology that outdoes religion when it comes to body count, and achieved that in less than a century.

Posted by: Richard Eis | November 9, 2009 11:35 AM

-How much "reaching out" makes up for all the mass murder?-

And that has "what" to do with the blog post?

Posted by: KI | November 9, 2009 11:37 AM

I am a communist sympathizer. Not Leninism, or Stalinism, or Maoism, but the basic and simple attitude that those who produce the wealth deserve the lion's share of it. Not the cheating thieving businessman, or the vampires in insurance or "the law". Labor produces wealth and should have the say in who gets to share in it. Lawyers and politicians and the military and bankers and all the people who make a "living" shuffling the wealth around are basically parasitic, and need to be controlled and kept out of power. The people who create and work and make stuff are the engine of humanity, not the people who steal all the stuff and refuse to let us have any of it returned to its rightful owners.

The reason both communism and socialism are opposed by the religious is because contented people don't bother with the stupidity of church, and don't add to the collection plate. It's the same reason they hate marijuana-who needs church when you're happy?

Posted by: Bob L | November 9, 2009 11:39 AM

So the EHSC arguement can be reasonably distilled to; Taylor is a commie so we don't want to hear what she has to say and Koger is a commie with criminal record so the cops should beat him up on general principal? We are humanist so you trespass on us we will KILL you!!! erm

Posted by: Muzz | November 9, 2009 11:39 AM

There's some things reminiscent of teachings from The Wirein all this (or so it seems from my cursory attention).
No matter what the intentions of people, noble or ig-, once they organise themselves the institution itself will come before all other goals so often.

Posted by: The Science Pundit | November 9, 2009 11:44 AM

People who don't like communism ought to fight it by working for social justice, rather than having people beat up and arrested...which is a great way to create more communists.

Yes, one of the many things that Marx got wrong was moderate improvements in social justice (the rise of labor unions, progressive taxation, etc.). Marx's vision had things getting worse and worse, while the bourgoise who held the power never gave an inch, until a revolution became inevitable. I'd like to think that even Marx would have to concede that these kinds of improvements would spell the death knell of his predicted revolution, but who knows.

Posted by: Gerin Oil | November 9, 2009 11:47 AM

@Abdul Alhazred, you wrote: (#7)
"[blockquote]One of the things I do admire about the Communists is that they do reach out to the poor, the oppressed, the imprisoned ...[/blockquote]

Bait and switch. It's like religious apologetics.

How much "reaching out" makes up for all the mass murder?

It's the only ideology that outdoes religion when it comes to body count, and achieved that in less than a century."

***

You're completely wrong. The ideology is not responsible for those atrocities--the people who committed them through their own particular application of their vision of the ideology are responsible. There is nothing inherently violent in communism.

If communism were to blame for the atrocities, hippie communes around the world would be very different places, what with all the mass-murdering stoners you would have to find there.

Posted by: ERV | November 9, 2009 11:50 AM

Cogito-- PZ, you should just drop this mess. It's not making you look good. Just let these two groups sort out their rivalries on their own.
Why?

People calling themselves 'humanists' are behaving like goddamn dirty churchies. Its disgusting, and I wish theyd just call themselves 'The Church of Woobags Who Dont Believe In God, But Are Too Pathetic To Let Church Go', but they dont.

I expect my Christian friends to step up and speak out when their kind are behaving badly, why should PZ not step up and speak out when humanists are behaving badly?

Posted by: Tulse | November 9, 2009 11:52 AM

There is nothing inherently violent in communism.

No, but almost all historical examples of state-imposed communism either devolve into or start as totalitarianism, often with a strong anti-intellectual bent, suggesting that it is not an ideology well-suited to large social groupings.

Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | November 9, 2009 12:03 PM

Funny, two additional threads and over a thousand statements and I have yet to change my mind that the Chicago Ethical Humanist Society acted in bad faith at every step. But I am extremely put off by those who interpret the the condemnation of the actions of the Chicago Ethical Humanist Society as meaning they support Sunsasra Taylor.

As for the camera man being an ex-con, did the Chicago Ethical Humanist Society and the Skokie police know that he was and that he deserved to be beaten?

Posted by: dinkum | November 9, 2009 12:06 PM

The Church of Woobags Who Dont Believe In God, But Are Too Pathetic To Let Church Go

...'cause "Unitarians" was taken.

Posted by: Perplexed | November 9, 2009 12:08 PM

Gerin Oil,

I was about to say much the same thing but I'm sure you put it better that I would have.

As far as this situation goes, far too much hearsay to possibly know what really happened or at least it seems that way to me.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 9, 2009 12:13 PM

Yes, one of the many things that Marx got wrong was moderate improvements in social justice (the rise of labor unions, progressive taxation, etc.). Marx's vision had things getting worse and worse, while the bourgoise who held the power never gave an inch, until a revolution became inevitable. I'd like to think that even Marx would have to concede that these kinds of improvements would spell the death knell of his predicted revolution, but who knows.

I have always been puzzled by that, especially since he wrote "Das Kapital" in the UK, which has a long record of the ruling elite giving way enough to avoid serious violent confrontation with the working class.

Posted by: Paul | November 9, 2009 12:20 PM

No, but almost all historical examples of state-imposed communism either devolve into or start as totalitarianism, often with a strong anti-intellectual bent, suggesting that it is not an ideology well-suited to large social groupings.

I can't believe I saw this argument on Pharyngula. PHARYNGULA, of all freaking places.

We take these arguments seriously now? Next time some raving Christian comes in and uses the "atheist governments commit mass murder" argument we've already given up making the distinctions between the actual rulers, their motivations and their avowed ideologies. After all, almost all officially atheist governments either devolve into or start out as totalitarianism.

I'd think someone that spends a lot of time in the comment threads here could recognize the hypocrisy. But then, I suppose the US has been successful at scaring even the atheists with the word Communism.

Sickening.

Posted by: Cerberus | November 9, 2009 12:24 PM

Communism does not work, yes, as a large-scale political system, because the needs of distribution tends towards enabling an autocratic ruler or oligarchy of power and as seen in broken capitalist countries, that is always a bad thing for civil rights and life.

But communism can work politically in small scale neighborhoods or organizations, it can work economically in the form of labor-owned collectives operating in a well-regulated free market.

But these are meaningless and overall not as helpful as their main important function, they are an important counterweight to the interests of the hostile money-worshippers. When fascism raged across Europe, it was communist organizations in the countries taken over who resisted, who got the word out about atrocities, who freed and aided allied troops (the most famous of these is the French Resistance). Today, they counter nascent neo-nazi groups and prevent the excesses towards oligarchy and monopoly and money-first attitudes in free-market capitalist economic structures.

A motivated communist presence in a country places emphasis on the necessity of moderate to high social justice reform in order to keep people sated enough that they are not tempted by revolution either communist or fascist.

Already in America, we see the consequences of eliminating our communist movements and marginalizing them with far more intensity than we put into marginalizing our neo-fascists, domestic terrorists, and general right-wing religious crazies. It is the main reason why we struggle for tiny reforms to our broken health care system where every other industrialized nation provides for health as a national human right. It is why most industrialized nations are past ours in treatment of the poor, treatment of racial and sexual minorities, and a host of other issues despite once leading the world on many if not most counts.

I wouldn't ever agree with revolutionary communists, but I'm damn grateful for them and am willing to call myself a leftist and a socialist if that will aid their work balancing out the excesses of the libertarians and Wall Street and help raise awareness of the appalling class-based injustices that are occurring every day.

CEHS's response was wholly unsurprising because we have been well-trained in this country that nothing is worse than a communist. Not the theocratic forces who have the complete slaughter of everyone not them as their primary drive, not the homegrown terrorists and white supremacists, not the rapacious greed of some small set of Wall Street maniacs willing to bankrupt the whole world for short term profit, not the Rapturists and energy barons playing chicken with global warming hoping for a collapse the day after they check out, not the motivated right-wing who have not shied from their love of coups, torture, and autocratic sympathies.

But a set of people, who in a country with moderate sane reformations along social justice lines are about as frightening as a labor union. And I say this as a current resident of a country (Denmark) where they not only shut down the cities every May 1st with their parades, but actually have built a small communist/anarchist village called Christianshavn in the capital city.

Denmark has one of the lowest crime rates in the world and weathered the financial collapse better than anyone. They also have a Feminist Party and were the first to grant gay rights as well as having the World's happiest population despite having a sky that's grey 6 months out of the year.

Just saying.

Posted by: Knockgoats | November 9, 2009 12:27 PM

After all, almost all officially atheist governments either devolve into or start out as totalitarianism.

After all, almost all officially atheist governments either devolve into or start out as totalitarianism. - Paul

Thing is, Paul, there is nothing inherently totalitarian about atheism. There is, however, about Leninism - which is what all "Communist" governments that lasted any appreciable time have professed. The core of Leninism is that the "vanguard Party" - not the people, not even the proletariat - rules.

Posted by: Paul | November 9, 2009 12:34 PM

Thing is, Paul, there is nothing inherently totalitarian about atheism. There is, however, about Leninism - which is what all "Communist" governments that lasted any appreciable time have professed. The core of Leninism is that the "vanguard Party" - not the people, not even the proletariat - rules.

Fair point. However, pointing out that the one strain of communism that has risen to the government level has totalitarianism inherent in its structure is hardly an indictment of potential systems of communism in the future (if indeed the idea stays around). It may or may not be something that could be innovated around.

I was hasty in my response, however. I just never expected to see the "Soviet Russia/Maoist China was bad, therefore communism is bad" argument from a Pharyngulite.

Posted by: - | November 9, 2009 12:39 PM

Jim Lippard #34:

Why does this conversation continue in the absence of the content of the police report?

Because people enjoy expressing opinions before they know the full story/it's a blog/work is boring/etc.

What do the police give as their reasons for macing, arresting, and charging the photographer?

I don't have the full police report, just this from here:

November 6, 2009

BATTERY

Gregory Koger, 31, of 1389 Almaden Lane, Gurnee, is scheduled to appear in court Nov. 18 on charges of battery, criminal trespass to property and resisting arrest stemming from an incident at 10:27 a.m. Nov. 1 at the Ethical Humanist Society of Chicago on the 7500 block of Lincoln Avenue. Police said Koger videotaped a speech at the facility and was asked to stop but refused to do so. Police said they told Koger to stop filming and after he stopped for a short time, he started to film again. Police said they ultimately told him he was under arrest for criminal trespass to property when Koger tensed up and tried to resist. Police said he pushed an officer in the chest in attempt to avoid apprehension. Police said they were able to handcuff Koger after pepper spraying him as he continued to struggle.

Posted by: ekcol | November 9, 2009 12:48 PM

Seriously, am I the only person who thinks it's not the CEHS's fault if the police were violent?

Or in the US, can you just ask the police to beat people up for you and they will?

Posted by: Mike | November 9, 2009 12:54 PM

From PZ's latest post:
"the Ethical Humanist Society of Chicago is betraying what ought to be the basic principles of such a society: tolerance, engagement, argument, discussion."

From the previous post telling the society's side of the story:
"From October 19 onward Ms. Taylor and her people demanded she be given the November 1 platform. Attempt after attempt was made to find a solution that, although not ideal for either side, was palatable for both. The society bent over backwards to appease Ms. Taylor. She was given an October 31 workshop that was well attended and a member of the society offered her home for Ms. Taylor's self proclaimed "speech in exile" on November 1. Notice of the "exile" speech was even made through the Society's list serve. The only thing we would not agree to was having her speak at the society on November 1. All we asked is that she not disrupt the Sunday platform."

That reflects the principles of tolerance, engagement, argument, and discussion just fine, thank you very much. They provided her with multiple forums. She just wasn't happy with them and chose to be a child about it. Was the society stupid not to vet her more carefully? Yep. But quit complaining they did not hear her, and engage with her ideas.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 9, 2009 12:59 PM

That reflects the principles of tolerance, engagement, argument, and discussion just fine, thank you very much. They provided her with multiple forums. She just wasn't happy with them and chose to be a child about it. Was the society stupid not to vet her more carefully? Yep. But quit complaining they did not hear her, and engage with her ideas.

So inviting someone to speak, and then backing out at the last moment is all of those is it ?

At the very least the EHSC lack common decency and manners. Not many people here are arguing Taylor is without fault in this issue, but the simple lack of acknowledgement from the EHSC that they did the slightest thing wrong is telling, especially in an organisation that claims to be ethical. One important part of Ethics is behaving well towards others. The EHSC did not behave well towards Taylor.

Posted by: Sili | November 9, 2009 1:11 PM

The CEHS is not smart. Rule Zero. When you find yourself in a hole, STOP DIGGING!!!

Posted by: Carolyn Ann | November 9, 2009 1:19 PM

Well, at least we know what happened with the cameraman. While I can't imagine what he was thinking, one thing is clear: the Ethical Society had better toughen up, become more humanist, not use the police to eject rabble-rousers, tolerate it when someone comes and interrupts their meeting (because that's not being humanist) and basically suck it up when criticized, and refuse to defend themselves in the face of such criticism. Oh, and not be human, either. After all, people make mistakes and we wouldn't want that from a group of humanists. Right?

Oh yeah, they should man up and accept that they bear the all the responsibility for the cops' actions. Sorry, I must have missed the bit where its stated the cops are marionettes, the strings held by the comfortable bourgeoisie. (In simple fact. once the EHSC chap had said he wanted to press charges, the cops don't take any direction on how they should do their job. And considering what he's charged with, and his prior history - the Ethical Society likely has no further say. The cops are not going to drop the charges when they allege he pushed one of them. Oh hang on - that doesn't count! It's clear the cops overreacted and the man was simply standing mutely by! Sorry, I forgot.)

Yup, those Ethical Society members truly are a despicable lot! Fancy wanting to have a say in who can stay in their meeting? Goodness me, whatever will they demand next? The ability to retain their individual and collective rights in the face of a someone who fancies denying them, just for a moment, so she can make a speech? What hideous harridans they must be! Supporting the brutalization of someone they know nothing of! He could have been a violent ex-felon, for goodness sake! Heavens to Betsy, I almost ran out of exclamation marks.

What you're suggesting, PZ, is from a Monty Python sketch: person on door (Eric Idle?): "Are you a violent felon? Yes? Good, good. Please sit over there, and don't forget we condone and promote the brutalization of criminal cameramen, so please make sure you have your camera out and on! Ah, Miss Taylor so nice to have you here, despite our invitation to stay away! Please, we have no need of our rights, and much prefer to let you have some fictional rights you've defined for yourself! You may make a nuisance of yourself over there, if you don't mind? Thank you!"

Ah well.

If the tales of the man's criminal past are accurate, it really shines a new light on the woe and expressed anguish of some my appalled critics. The anger at my lack of concern now seems, well, entirely too convenient. Crocodile tears, anyone?

Re the other topic under discussion:
Communism, a laxative for the mind.

Communism is a political system that is venal in its fraudulence. It's even more inequitable than capitalism, but sans any saving graces. Communism is forcing everyone (except the enlightened few) to the lowest common denominator. The individual doesn't matter, but the collective does. A better recipe for corruption I've yet to see.

Communists like to claim their ideas are inherently fair, but I've never read, or spoke to, one who could demonstrate how their system is anything but corrupt and crooked. They do have a habit of glossing over the evidence that shows their ideas to be what they really are: half baked.

Ms Taylor, in her blog, uses nicer wording to make the point about humanity's needs surpassing those of the individual. But I can't see any real difference between her system and Stalin's. What I do enjoy is the irony: if her world came to fruition, she would be one of the first shoved against the wall.

I've never failed to notice the hypocrisy of communists.

Carolyn Ann

*It is amusing that Ms Taylor hosts her blog on the servers of a very profitable, private, company.

Posted by: mwsletten | November 9, 2009 1:25 PM

Gerin Oil said: 'The ideology is not responsible for those atrocities--the people who committed them through their own particular application of their vision of the ideology are responsible.'

Can the same be said of capitalism?

Posted by: Hairhead | November 9, 2009 1:37 PM

Carolyn, you are being ridiculous and disingenuous, to the point of being a fucking liar.

No-one has said that the Ethical Society is required to allow people to interrupt their meetings, nor to disinvite speakers.

What is at issue here is the DISPORPORTIONATE (I hate to use caps, but you seem so thick that Internet Yelling may be the only way to get through to you) nature of the response to Ms. Sunsara's actions. (Physical injury, criminal charges, etc.)

And as to your continued abrogation of responsibility for the actions of the police, I an only conclude that you have spent the last thirty years of your life ignoring entirely what it is the police in your country do, and how they do it. Either that or you think that people should be violently beaten for being associated with a person speaking out of turn at a public meeting. Not accepting responsibility for the actions of the police, who act in your name, when you know clearly the scale of the offense puts you on the side of approving of the disproportionate police response. Your other remarks put you also on the fairly authoritarian side.

Your remarks as regards the past history of the cameraman show once again that you are an unforgiving, authoritarian control freak whom I would not classify as a humanist.

But we do agree on one thing: Communism as a system is fucked. Their goals -- equality, justice, fairness, etc. are great, but their political structure and process is antithetical to civilized ideals.

Posted by: mwsletten | November 9, 2009 1:39 PM

Has anyone else noticed the coincidence that today is the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin wall?

For a historical look at communism in the 20th century take a look at this:

http://www.globalmuseumoncommunism.org/

Posted by: Carolyn Ann | November 9, 2009 1:41 PM

Paul, My apologies in advance if I misread your comment! Once the guy pushed the cop in the chest, the EHSC has no further involvement in his arrest. The cops will arrest him for the assault.

(Whether he did, in fact, push the cop is a matter for the courts to figure out. I don't envy them their task. The cameraman has a credibility problem, too.)

It all makes Ms Taylor's, and those of her supporters, exhortations and claims look a bit silly. Once you push a cop, the response is not going to be proportionate. It just isn't.

Push a cop, go to jail. It's really that simple. (I do not recommend testing this theory, but if you're dim enough to try - that's your problem, not mine.)

Carolyn Ann

Posted by: Red John | November 9, 2009 1:43 PM

Communism is a political system that is venal in its fraudulence. It's even more inequitable than capitalism, but sans any saving graces. Communism is forcing everyone (except the enlightened few) to the lowest common denominator. The individual doesn't matter, but the collective does. A better recipe for corruption I've yet to see.

Citation, please. It's fine for you to hold that as your opinion, but if you're going to come here and assert it as fact you need something to back it up.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 9, 2009 1:49 PM

needs. more. bacon.

Posted by: David Estlund | November 9, 2009 1:50 PM

Carolyn, so capitalism is inevitably unfair, and communism is inevitably corrupt. PZ already addressed that:

People who don't like communism ought to fight it by working for social justice, rather than having people beat up and arrested...which is a great way to create more communists.

Posted by: Ermine | November 9, 2009 1:56 PM

Mike @ 45

That's the 'Ethical' Humanists Society's claim. Those on Sunsara's side have replied that the Saturday Workshop was planned at the same time that her speech was, and that it was on a different topic. (So NO, the EHSC did NOT provide another venue for the speech they disliked in any way at all.) Also, that the private home that was provided for her 'speech in exile' was provided by a FORMER member of the EHSC who had already quit the Society in disgust after their disinvitation and subsequent behavior.

If that's true, then the 'E'HSC did NOT 'bend over backward' to provide her another venue to speak at, and they're trying to grab credit for the kind actions of people who are not even members of their organization. That would make them not just jerks, but flat-out liars as well. That doesn't seem very ethical to me, how about you?

Now, I don't know for sure who to believe yet, but as this fiasco continues, it's the 'Ethical' Humanists Society's own words (Said and unsaid) that are making them look bad, to the point that I'm willing to give the other side at least some credence in their claims - And if they are true, then the EHSC deserves every bit of the opprobrium that they're getting for their actions.

Posted by: heironymous | November 9, 2009 1:57 PM

Clearly, this is a case that is being tried in the court of public opinion rather than the court of law.

Before this incident, I had never heard of either Sunsara Taylor nor the EHSC. Most of what I've learned of the incident I've gleaned from Pharyngula and Friendly Atheist - both blogs that I read but rarely post.

I contend the following: the EHSC did not act in an unethical manner. I could see charges of intellectual cowardice holding. But in what way were they unethical?

1) The EHSC invited Ms. Taylor to speak at their Nov 1 event
2) They rescinded their invitation two weeks prior to the event.
3) Ms. Taylor ran an EHSC workshop on October 31 and stated her attention to give her speech the next day regardless of the EHSC's wishes. She was asked not to.
4) Ms. Taylor and several colleagues arrived at the Nov 1 event. They were asked to leave and did not comply.
5) The cameraman was arrested and handcuffed. Apparently mace was used.

I believe that Sunsara attended on Sunday with the express purpose of instigating a scene. Having her cameraman arrested was not ideal, but Sunsara's primary objection was not his arrest but that she herself didn't get arrested before so her videographer could be free to record the event.

Posted by: stptrck75 | November 9, 2009 2:10 PM

No doubt the folks at the ethical society are kicking themselves for their hasty reaction.

The camera-guy does have a pretty violent criminal background though. Did they (the ethical society) know who this dude was before they dialed 911?

He could have been concealing a weapon. He has a history of just that...

Posted by: Bob | November 9, 2009 2:11 PM

I'm afraid you've lost a reader, PZ. I'm a big fan of your rhetorical style, but sympathy for Communists crosses the line.

Posted by: JJR | November 9, 2009 2:15 PM

“When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist.”
--Dom Helder Camara

Posted by: Bob | November 9, 2009 2:23 PM

PZ, one of the favorite tactics of theists is to attempt to tie the American atheist movement to Communism. We can't afford to give them more ammunition.

Posted by: Dark Matter | November 9, 2009 2:25 PM

Another group whose gatekeeper "leadership" is there to allow
a variety of opinions only on a very narrow range of topics - and
calling that "free speech".

Taylor and her cameraman stepped outside their "free speech
zone" and got wacked.

Posted by: Tulse | November 9, 2009 2:26 PM

We take these arguments seriously now? Next time some raving Christian comes in and uses the "atheist governments commit mass murder" argument we've already given up making the distinctions between the actual rulers, their motivations and their avowed ideologies. After all, almost all officially atheist governments either devolve into or start out as totalitarianism.

Actually, most industrialized governments are at least officially secular (I suppose the UK would be a technical exception to that). And I really would appreciate it if you read my posting rather than just make assumptions about what I'm saying, such as:

I just never expected to see the "Soviet Russia/Maoist China was bad, therefore communism is bad" argument from a Pharyngulite.

First off, I would not limit it to the Soviet Union (not just Russia, of course) or Maoist China -- I would include Pol Pot's Cambodia, the People's Socialist Republic of Albania, East Germany, Cuba under Castro, etc. etc. etc. I am happy to consider examples of state-imposed communism that did not involve totalitarianism, if you have some to offer, but I think the specific claim I made is pretty indisputable. And, to return to what I actually said, these examples "suggest that it is not an ideology well-suited to large social groupings". That does not mean it can't work in kibbutzim or hippie communes or monasteries or religious communities. It also does not mean that socialism is some sort of inherent evil, as there are plenty of successful social democracies (I live in Soviet Canuckistan, and would be happy if it were more of a social democracy).

So no, I didn't say that "communism is bad" -- I said that the historical examples we have of state-imposed communism involve totalitarianism. If you want to challenge that claim, offer up counterexamples instead of indignation.

Posted by: inkadu | November 9, 2009 2:27 PM

Why would the police care so much about whether he is filming or not? Why charge someone with criminal trespass if the precipitating event is holding a video camera? It doesn't make any damn sense.

Posted by: heironymous | November 9, 2009 2:29 PM

Matt -

Short notice? Two weeks prior? - And they apologized - exactly what I'd expect to get if someone canceled on me two weeks prior to an event. If there was financial remuneration involved, I haven't heard of it, but that kind of thing usually has contracts which stipulate cancellation time frames.

Giving her exactly what she wanted is unethical? Maybe I need a primer on what exactly ethics are then.

And canceling her speech because she was "a Commie" would consist of intellectual cowardice (imo), but the motive of the cancellation hasn't actually been proven. I've read both sides' claims. Simply paraphased, it's "Non-topical" vs. "I'm too radical for them."

Posted by: Hairhead | November 9, 2009 2:31 PM

Hi, Bob at #73. I see you're in the "Communists aren't actually people, so we can beat them up and destroy their lives with impunity and no sense of guilt". Fuck me, don't people get that when you deny people their humanity by denying them your sympathy and empathy you're running pell-mell down the road to brutality?

I've got amusing story about a Communist. A good friend of mine happened to be 17 years old, living in France, and unfortunately half-German and half-French (German mother) in 1944. The occupying Germans drafted him and said, "You're German, you're fighting!" He responded he would never fight against the Free French or their allies. They said, "Okay, it's the firing squad." He responded, "Okay, I hate the Bolsheviks. I'll fight if you send me to the Eastern Front, which they did."

After a month of fighting in the heavy winter, his company was down to him and 2 others. They agreed to split up and try to get back on their own. Through many horrible adventures he managed to get back to the American lines and was put in a P.O.W. camp, then returned in late 1945 to the French authorities.

Now, he fought for the Nazis, so he was automatically a war criminal, and as such was put in jail to await a trial and sentencing. One day he was brought to an interview room and introduced to his lawyer, appointed by the government. She looked through his file and announced, "I am a Communist, you filthy bourgeois traitor, you are scum!" So my friend, disenheartened, remarked that he was obviously looking at long sentence. The response surprised him. "What! I am a lawyer! My duty to you has nothing to do with my personal feelings! Do not insult me again!"

True to her word, she got him freed quickly, with just a year's probation.

Just to prove that you can be a Communist, and still a rational, ethical, professional person.

Posted by: Paul | November 9, 2009 2:32 PM

PZ, one of the favorite tactics of theists is to attempt to tie the American atheist movement to Communism. We can't afford to give them more ammunition.

Refusing to treat Communists as human beings would not keep theists from attempting to conflate atheism and Communism. It would just make you a poor excuse for a human being, and allow the theists to keep using Communist as a handy label for demonization of their opponents.

I'd rather work to a place where we don't identify people as their ideologies. It's a much better long-term solution to the theist problem than participating in their 'othering' of marginalized and feared minorities (of which we are very much still one). You might as well say we shouldn't defend other atheists because theists dislike atheists.

Posted by: windy | November 9, 2009 2:35 PM

No, but almost all historical examples of state-imposed communism either devolve into or start as totalitarianism, often with a strong anti-intellectual bent, suggesting that it is not an ideology well-suited to large social groupings.

I'm not disagreeing with you but IS there an ideology that's well-suited to large social groupings?

Posted by: aratina cage | November 9, 2009 2:41 PM

inkadu,

Why would the police care so much about whether he is filming or not? Why charge someone with criminal trespass if the precipitating event is holding a video camera? It doesn't make any damn sense.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 9, 2009 2:42 PM

Short notice? Two weeks prior? - And they apologized - exactly what I'd expect to get if someone canceled on me two weeks prior to an event. If there was financial remuneration involved, I haven't heard of it, but that kind of thing usually has contracts which stipulate cancellation time frames.

Yeap, short notice. Taylor seems to undertake a lot of speaking engagements. To ask someone to speak at an event, meaning they will refuse other invitations that would clash, and then to cancel with only a fortnight's notice is unfair and unethical.

Giving her exactly what she wanted is unethical? Maybe I need a primer on what exactly ethics are then.

Oh dear. Lying now. Now that is unethical. What I said was "Further, by reacting as they did to her protest they ensured that she got the publicity she was seeking. Not unethical perhaps, but pretty stupid."

So I did not say giving her what she wanted was unethical.

However you clearly do need a lesson in ethical behaviour since you think lying is OK.

We know why they cancelled, they did not like the fact she was going to talk of communism when explaining how one can be moral without religion. Since Taylor is a communist, and those inviting her should have known that, it would not have been a surprise.

Intellectual cowardice would be unethical. You really have not got this ethical business sorted have you ?

Posted by: Joshua | November 9, 2009 2:43 PM

This is all so silly.

Posted by: Red John | November 9, 2009 2:45 PM

I'm afraid you've lost a reader, PZ. I'm a big fan of your rhetorical style, but sympathy for Communists crosses the line.

Good riddance then. Let's hope you're actually gone.

Posted by: Steve LaBonne | November 9, 2009 2:50 PM

I have a guess that they knew his criminal background and were worried about him becoming violent.

Well, I have a guess that the cops really wanted to rough up Taylor. And I have, not a guess at all, but the certain knowledge that cops really hate being videoed while doing things like that. I think my explanation is a hell of a lot more credible.

Posted by: Knockgoats | November 9, 2009 2:51 PM

Tell a cop how to do his or her job and let me know how it goes. I regularly send paperbacks to prisons, so please make sure I know where to send them. - Carolyn Ann

OK, so you're of the opinion that American cops will arrest and charge people, and the courts will imprison them, for talking out of turn - and you think the EHSC were justified in calling said cops to a non-violent protest. I think that's all we need to know about your devotion to freedom, Carolyn Ann.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 9, 2009 2:53 PM

Actually, most industrialized governments are at least officially secular (I suppose the UK would be a technical exception to that).

Only England still has an "established" religion. Wales did away with establishment when it got devolved powers. Scotland and Northern Ireland never officially had one.

England is not alone in Europe in having an established religion. When it comes to liberal democracies an established religion does not seem to lead to more religion in public life. In fact the evidence suggest the opposite, possibly because in those liberal democracies with an established religion there is an effort to ensure minorities are not disenfranchised as a result.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | November 9, 2009 2:55 PM

I stopped paying attention to Carolyn's posts in the last thread on this subject...

Trying to get her to stay on point and quit mis-representing our arguments proved an exercise in futility.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | November 9, 2009 3:01 PM

No ones actually addressed the substantive portion of what I've stated. Sunsara got exactly what she wanted - attention and publicity. Her only gripe would be that she didn't have the videocamera running and it wasn't her being arrested.

Oh, FFS, heironymous... that statement is pure bullshit. It has been addressed in that for the most part NOBODY IS NECESSARILY ARGUING THAT FUCKING POINT. And, it does not REQUIRE addressing in order for the main point, stated AGAIN:

the Ethical Humanist Society of Chicago is betraying what ought to be the basic principles of such a society: tolerance, engagement, argument, discussion.

to be true!

Christ on a cracker!

Posted by: AJ Milne | November 9, 2009 3:04 PM

Re misery creating communists, I don't doubt this for a minute. And it's not a terribly unreasonable thing either. Seeing the inequities that persist in modern economies professing capitalism as their general guiding principle, it's natural enough, as opposed to saying 'let's fix those', rather 'fuck, toss the whole mangled mess... what else we got?'...

I'm not one of those, by the way. Not even remotely. Just saying: I absolutely recognize it as a reasonable enough reaction. Demonising folk who have that entirely understandable reaction, I find this likewise unreasonable.

(Nor, for that matter, on the related subject, have I really any admiration for Mao. Contempt would be more the word. Guy was... nasty. And that's putting it gently. There are certain means I'm not sure any end justifies. And he had a disturbing fondness for those, from what I see. Just so we're clear where I'm coming from, generally. I would not in a million years want anyone to cite me as 'sympathatic to Maoism'. To cameramen who wind up on the floor beneath a pile of cops, hell, yeah. To that dangerous, nasty, mercifully dead SOB, no, not so much...)

But also: yeah, fuck, yeah: a previous criminal record and political opinions not held by the current police chief do not a conviction nor grounds for a pileon by armed officers make. And there remains the reeking odour of the fact that it was the vidoegrapher who wound up on the floor beneath them. The question remains: why even pursue the guy with the camera? What threat does a camera pose you, that you are so opposed to its running? I mean, man: He's got a cellphone with a lense... And he's using it! Stop 'im! And if he won't, bust his chops?

Nuts. Beyond nuts. Not something I like seeing anywhere in a democracy.

Posted by: heironymous | November 9, 2009 3:05 PM

"Further, by reacting as they did to her protest they ensured that she got the publicity she was seeking. Not unethical perhaps, but pretty stupid. Involving the police to deal with a short non-violent protest is not ethical, I am pretty sure of that."

How is involving the police not ethical? They asked the police to attend because they were afraid. Your assumption is that the protest was going to be non-violent. It didn't turn out that way.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 9, 2009 3:14 PM

How is involving the police not ethical? They asked the police to attend because they were afraid. Your assumption is that the protest was going to be non-violent. It didn't turn out that way.

Hey Liar and whiner.

No, it didn't. Because the police became involved. Anyone with common sense knows that involving the police in an otherwise non-violent situation is unlikely to improve matters.

Posted by: aratina cage | November 9, 2009 3:16 PM

Steve LaBonne,

I think my explanation is a hell of a lot more credible.

So, once I got back to Stateville [prison], I was going to retrieve my property, and a guard there was threatening me and trying to steal my property, and I of course violently resisted his attempt at Armed Robbery. This led me to be sent to Pontiac Correctional Center the next day and given an indeterminate period of segregation, and I was also later criminally prosecuted for fighting back against the prison guard who was trying to rob me of my property (and he did rob me of my property, as well as have his accomplices in the Will County prosecutors office prosecute me and have me sentenced to serve an extra 3 years in prison for resisting his crimes).

Posted by: Aaron Baker | November 9, 2009 3:17 PM

Jesus Christ! I looked at Koger's website, and he was one of my students in Humanities 121 at the College of Lake County in 2008. Soft-spoken, very smart. I suppose it's conceivable that he mixed it up with the Police and gave them a plausible reason to arrest him. On the other hand, Chicago Policemen have more than once demonstrated no need at all for such a reason. Actually having some knowledge of him, I'd want to hear something pretty good from the officers to justify their behavior.

I note also that Koger apparently got his 20-year sentence at the age of 17. In Illinois, anyone can be (and routinely is) charged as an adult at age 17. But does anybody here really think that a 17-year old has the self-control we associate with adults, such that he'd really merit losing 20 years of his life? In his shoes, I think I'd want to subvert the system, too.

Posted by: Mu | November 9, 2009 3:18 PM

One of the things I do admire about the Communists is that they do reach out to the poor, the oppressed, the imprisoned, and they try to address the injustices our society commits.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 9, 2009 3:21 PM

heironymous,

You are still a liar and a whiner.

You're still just splitting hairs. I've yet to see the great unethical action of the EHSC.

No. That would be because you are not intelligent enough.

If I get invited to give a speech about lilacs and give an outline on a speech about gay rights and then get disinvited, it's completely justified.

You are lying once again. It seems to be a habit with you.

Taylor was invited to talk on morals with religion. She talk she proposed did just that. What happened is that she intended to mention her political philosophy in doing so. Quite reasonable, since political philosophies involve concepts of morality. However her philosophy is a form of maoist inspired communism, which seemed to upset some people.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 9, 2009 3:24 PM

I don't necessarily believe the police report either. But there's also no guarantee it wouldn't have been more violent if the police hadn't have been there.

There was no violence at all until the police arrived.

Another lie from you. You going for some record ?

Posted by: DLC | November 9, 2009 3:26 PM

Somebody stop shaking the teapot.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 9, 2009 3:32 PM

Carolyn Ann --> Killfile, for stupidity, insipidity, and being a bad apologist. To many long non-cogent non-relevant posts to tolerate. If she could just say "we did wrong", she would show intelligence. But that appears beyond her ken...

Posted by: Phoenix Woman | November 9, 2009 3:33 PM

No, but almost all historical examples of state-imposed communism either devolve into or start as totalitarianism, often with a strong anti-intellectual bent, suggesting that it is not an ideology well-suited to large social groupings.

The whole point of communism is that it's only supposed to be implemented in societies that have already evolved from feudalism to capitalism to democracy, and have at least two centuries' worth of democratic traditions and experience.

That's why Karl Marx himself wanted England to be the first nation to give it a try. He would have been horrified to see feudal states like Russia, China, or the Southeast Asian nations being the first to try it.

Posted by: aratina cage | November 9, 2009 3:45 PM

Steve LaBonne,

Are you so logically challenged that you think that's somehow relevant to the event in question, for which there are eyewitness accounts directly contradicting the police? Even in the legal system prior convictions are normally not admissible evidence, and for good reason- they're prejudicial.

Posted by: Jack | November 9, 2009 3:47 PM

@Cogito #16

PZ, you should just drop this mess. It's not making you look good.

You know what, Cogito? That isn't a good way to behave. Don't be like the religious. Don't tell grown adults to shut up when they say things that you don't like, or which make you uncomfortable.

PZ's not stupid - haven't you noticed? He states his view and, when justified, will amend or supplement that view as more facts become available. If it turns out that this guy did something to justify being assaulted by the police I'm sure PZ will be among the first to say, "Oh, right, that explains it". But from what's surfaced so far this looks very dodgy indeed and it is perfectly reasonable for PZ to draw attention to it. The stuff the CEHS linked provides not the slightest information about what Koger did on the occasion under discussion, but is rather a blatant attempt to discredit Koger by pure ad hominem attack. That in itself ought to be enough to ring alarm bells that they may be more concerned with damage limitation than fairness and honesty.

Seriously: telling people to shut up is never a good way to make your point.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | November 9, 2009 3:52 PM

When you condemn the EHSC (and only the EHSC) for this, you're completely ignoring the fact that Sunsara and her group willfully brought this about.

Don't be stupid, heironymous... look, I've already tried to argue this point in the last thread, but you can't use Sunsara's actions after the fact as defense for EHSC's actions before the fact. Again, why is this so hard to ask?

"Oh, you mean she acted like a total jerk after the fact? Well, then in that case she had it coming." What a stupid line of reasoning. Do better.

Secondly, your continued insistence that we are ignoring Sunsara's actions does not make it true. Continuing to insist this is the case is what is making you look like a liar.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | November 9, 2009 3:55 PM

If I get invited to give a speech about lilacs and give an outline on a speech about gay rights and then get disinvited, it's completely justified.

What a horribly disingenuous mis-representation of the situation... well done. Is that the level of dishonesty you need to stoop to in order to prove your point?

Posted by: heironymous | November 9, 2009 3:57 PM

Trolling? What?
No - you've lost patience because you've just resorted to name-calling rather than bring any kind of argument.
Even sad half-assed shit like:

"Further, by reacting as they did to her protest they ensured that she got the publicity she was seeking. Not unethical perhaps, but pretty stupid. Involving the police to deal with a short non-violent protest is not ethical, I am pretty sure of that."

"There was no violence at all until the police arrived.

Another lie from you. You going for some record ? "

or the ever constant:

"Ha ha ha, you conflated one of my arguments, so you're a whiny liar"

So according to your understanding of ethics. Involving the police is unethical behaviour. I'm still waiting for your Ethics vs. Morality paper. It will be fun to read.

Let's go back to my initial point
1) In my opinion, the EHSC is possibly guilty of intellectual cowardice but not of being unethical (This deals with the whole raison disinvitation most of you are harping on)

2) Sunsara Taylor and her group willfully provoked a disturbance at the EHSC private event and are wholly to blame for the unfortunate incident involving the police at the Sunday meeting.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 9, 2009 4:04 PM

Trolls like H just can't help themselves. They have no life otherwise. They just can't understand why nobody wants to spend time with them...

Posted by: Red John | November 9, 2009 4:07 PM

In my opinion, the EHSC is possibly guilty of intellectual cowardice but not of being unethical

Whether you call it 'intellectual cowardice' or not, censorship is always unethical.

Posted by: heironymous | November 9, 2009 4:12 PM

I'm confused by this expression troll you use.
By that do you mean someone who doesn't slavishly agree with PZ?

That's strange. I'm of the opinion that a conversation between people that all agree is one of the most boring things in the world.

I'd much rather post when I disagree and either persuade or be persuaded. Debate is far more interesting than mutual masturbation (unless we're talking literally - but that's a subject for another forum)

See - the Ethics in this situation seems to be confused by the arrest of the camera-person. Where to me, the only ethical dilemma is whether it was right or wrong for them to dis-invite Ms. Taylor. I don't have all of the facts of the situation there, so it is hard for me to judge it. So I'm interested in the various hypothetical situations surrounding it.

Posted by: Neil | November 9, 2009 4:13 PM

It really is amazing...I've not seen one person supporting the actions of the EHSC who hasn't either glossed over facts, used anti-commie smears, or outright lied. Mostly, all three. Even the last comment by Heironymous, said something that has been said at least a dozen times in these threads, and is by all evidence a lie. Nobody tried to force a speech on a captive audience. Will all of you ignorant, authority-worshiping commie-haters just STOP LYING!!!! Disagree all you want, but stop lying!

Posted by: Paul G. Brown | November 9, 2009 4:15 PM

Poor Uncle Karl ....

Everyone should read a little Marx. For the most part it's terribly dry stuff. And yet, Karl was among the greatest analysts of the capitalist system who ever lived. He saw more clearly than other bourgeois intellectuals the price paid by society for the material splendor that was the consequence of the industrial revolution.

History has proven him wrong about many details. But the same instinctively moral response to capitalism you find in Marx you'll also find (with very different responses) in Veblen, Galbraith, Orwell, etc.

Marxists, in my experience, are very good on asking the right questions. They're just kinda off kilter with their answers.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | November 9, 2009 4:21 PM

heironymous

I'm sorry if I missed your posts in the last thread, it was rather long and got hijacked by Sexist v Sexist.

Yes... well, I exited the discussion at that point...

You're right that my lilac/gay-rights analogy could be a false analogy b/c I don't have all the facts in front of me.

Fair enough, but I'd submit that presenting such an analogy as a prime defense of your position, whilst not knowing if the analogy accurately represents the facts, is probably going to net you some pretty caustic responses. I think it has since been pointed out to you that, while open perhaps to some interpretation, Sunsara's submitted speech was well enough within the boundaries of the stated subject that it should never have been subject to censorship as a prerequisite of inclusion... and certainly not from an "Ethical Humanist Society".

To put it bluntly, I don't know. I'm also willing to discuss it. It would help create discourse, if every one wouldn't attack each other's posts.

Again, a fair point to make... but I've been following the discussion and from my perspective, you have not exactly been acting in the spirit of enlightened discourse. You have continued to insist that certain positions are being taken that have been pointed out to you to be incorrect, repeatedly... you have jumped into the discussion making inaccurate analogies while admitting that you are not aware of the exact facts... you have attempted to shift the focus of the debate by trying to get into a semantic discussion over the definition of "ethics", while refusing to accept that under any definition, an Ethical Society engaging in acts of censorship, democratically applied or not, is a breech of THAT organizations charter, and ethically indefensible.

If you really would like to have a discourse over the actions of both sides, wrong and right, all of us are, and have been, willing to have that discussion...

Posted by: bonze | November 9, 2009 4:26 PM

Sympathize with small-c communists? Sure. Large-C Communists? Sometimes (e.g., Fred Pohl). (A side comment for enthusiasts: have you ever actually participated in a co-op business or lived in a co-op house? The experience is not always lovely!)

But... Maoists? Taylor promotes Mao apologists Raymond Lotta "Yes, revolutionary power must be held on to: a new state power and the overall leadership of a vanguard party are indispensable" and Bob Avakian, the Scarlet Pimpernel John Galt reclusive Chairman of the Revolutionary Communist Party: "in 'Meaningful Revolutionary Work,' an essay posted in early January on the party's website, Avakian writes, 'One important aspect of boldly spreading revolution and communism everywhere is the work of building what we have characterized as a culture of appreciation, promotion, and popularization around the leadership, the body of work and the method and approach of Bob Avakian.'" -- "Once asked by a college radio station if the party was developing a 'cult of personality' around Bob Avakian, he replied, 'I certainly hope so. We've been working very hard to create one.'"

The Great Leap Forward? Greaaaat! The Cultural Revolution! Smashing! Mass murder? Never happened!

Oh, and Stalin and the Gulag were cool too.

I can see why they disinvited her.

Posted by: Tulse | November 9, 2009 4:27 PM

windy:

I'm not disagreeing with you but IS there an ideology that's well-suited to large social groupings?

I don't know about "ideology" per se. In terms of political organization social democracy seems to have a pretty good track record in ameliorating the worst of raw capitalism and pure socialism.

Paul:

Actually, most industrialized governments are at least officially secular (I suppose the UK would be a technical exception to that).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_religion

The UK is hardly "a technical" or "the only" exception.

Again, did you actually read what I said, which was most industrialized governments? Look at the map in the article you reference -- are the majority of countries you would call "industrialized" represented by state religions?

No, but almost all historical examples of state-imposed communism either devolve into or start as totalitarianism, often with a strong anti-intellectual bent, suggesting that it is not an ideology well-suited to large social groupings.

I read the "no, but..." in context as asserting that communism is not suitable as a form of governance due to the violence and totalitarianism of past implementations, hence the simplified form "communism is bad".

As I have repeatedly said, communism may indeed be suitable for social groupings smaller than a nation-state, so I am definitely not saying the blanket statement that "communism is bad". Really, I'd appreciate it if you did not distort the argument.

Anecdotes are not data,

I wasn't referring to "anecdotes", but in fact to the entire "population" of data, namely, all those modern governments which have imposed communism. I offered you an opportunity to find one counter-example, one instance where state-imposed communism did not involve totalitarianism. You still have not provided one. (And to be clear, when one is addressing the full possible population of data, individual data points aren't "anecdotes". The problem with "anecdotes" is sampling bias -- you have yet to argue that the examples I provide do not cover the entire population of data points, or involve some sort of sampling bias.)

and looking at past governments without taking into account those in charge, their motivations, goals, and ideologies, is no different/better than pointing at Pol Pot and Stalin and saying atheist governments commit mass murder.

I thought "ideologies" was precisely what we were discussing.

If that is not what you are saying, I have no interest in continuing. If it is, perhaps you can provide evidence that shows communism is "not an ideology well-suited to large social groupings."

I have provided mountains of evidence that most if not all actual implementations of state-imposed communism have involved totalitarianism. You still have not offered any counter-evidence.

Anecdotes are not data,

See above regarding statistics and looking at the full population of data points.

and there have been few attempts at large scale communism without other very large factors in play (such as the threat of a US invasion to get rid of the reds).

So communism cannot fail but only be failed?

Posted by: Steve LaBonne | November 9, 2009 4:29 PM

I said nothing about trying him.

Wow, you really ARE stupid. My point was that even in the much more serious instance of an actual trial, his priors would be considered irrelevant. Thus a fortiori your reference to them is still more irrelevant. In any context, prejudicial crap is prejudicial crap. And the motives of those bringing it up are rarely honest.

There is plenty of evidence to indicate that this was a typical "police riot", something the Chicago cops are very experienced at.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | November 9, 2009 4:37 PM

Wow... PZ is on the ball today... Grady's post has vanished into the great abyss...

Carry on...

Posted by: Pacal | November 9, 2009 4:50 PM

I agree that Sunsara Taylor and Gregory Koger were treated badly and certainly that Mr. Koger's past is irrelevant, Unless your a douchebag who thinks that someone having a criminal past intitles others to beat that person up for no reason. So again just what did Mr. Koger do that that excused / justify beating him up? It appears nothing, so that bringing up his criminal past is just a worthlesss ad hominim.

As for this comment:

One of the things I do admire about the Communists is that they do reach out to the poor, the oppressed, the imprisoned, and they try to address the injustices our society commits. It's a shame that ethical humanists can't do the same, but instead treat a former criminal as a pariah who has to be put down.

Well it should be remembered that "Men are never so ready to commit crimes as when they think they are doing good". I simply don't trust Communists; behind the do good stuff is an agenda. Yes many people are attracted to Communism by its appeals to help people, but behind all that is a only too obvious desire for power. I just can't trust someones commitment to Freedom who admires Maoism and the Great Prolitarian Cultural Revolution, with its myriad atrocities or a mass murderer like Mao. (Bob Avakian) I personally think that in the end that Communism appealed to wannabe members of a new Bureaucratic / Technocratic class with dreams of domination along with people who bought into their rhetoric of helping the oppressed.

In University I particularily remember a group of Communists who postively gushed over Albania under Enver Hoxha. It was ludicrous. To say nothing of those fools who still were defending Stalin and Lenin.

I had to take refuge in reading more "Red" Rosa.

Posted by: heironymous | November 9, 2009 4:56 PM

@160 Sorry - I was in posting mode before I read that.

I'm pondering the asked-for revision. Is there a copy of the text available for perusal?

Consider that if the asked-for speech was not topical, asking for a rewrite shouldn't be considered censorship.

Censorship (to me) would involve rewriting her speech for her and publishing the revision

Posted by: aratina cage | November 9, 2009 4:57 PM

Steve LaBonne,

Wow, you really ARE stupid.

My point was that even in the much more serious instance of an actual trial, his priors would be considered irrelevant. Thus a fortiori your reference to them is still more irrelevant.

In any context, prejudicial crap is prejudicial crap. And the motives of those bringing it up are rarely honest.

There is plenty of evidence to indicate that this was a typical "police riot", something the Chicago cops are very experienced at.

Posted by: Paul | November 9, 2009 4:59 PM

Again, did you actually read what I said, which was most industrialized governments? Look at the map in the article you reference -- are the majority of countries you would call "industrialized" represented by state religions?

Leaving out the Middle East, there is Greece, Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Finland, England and Scotland. Not enough where I would try to frame them as uncommon exceptions.

I thought "ideologies" was precisely what we were discussing.

My mistake, I was vague in speaking. I meant that the largest factors in the ways most of those governments were run was based on Fearless Leader imposing his will on the populace, where their goals are more of a contributing factor to economic or government actions than the official ideology.

I offered you an opportunity to find one counter-example, one instance where state-imposed communism did not involve totalitarianism. You still have not provided one.

Can you show me where a Hispanic US President did a good job? Should we assume that it's not possible?

It's not a perfect analogy, but Communism has not been tried in earnest outside of the personality cults we know and love for their mass murdering ways. You can hardly point to the lack of non-totalitarian Communist systems when so far Communism has been relegated to the method of totalitarian dictators, with no way to seriously discuss Communism or Communist ways of thought without being smeared as advocating mass murder. These last few threads alone have shown that many otherwise rational people fall back to just "Communist, therefore wrong and eats babies".

You're also stipulating "state-imposed" Communism -- that's not something I've ever referred to, and I was referring to Communism as a method of governance. Of course "state-imposed" Communism would be totalitarian by its very nature, but at least theoretically it could be a ground up movement.

So communism cannot fail but only be failed?

No, the implication I was making is that Communism has been so thoroughly demonized in modern history that even if a country thought it was the best thing for their people, trying to go Communist would mean the world's biggest superpower would consider you a target. In such an atmosphere it is somewhat disingenuous to point at nobody trying it and say "of course it doesn't work, past implementations failed and nobody is trying it now".

I'd prefer to let the Communists bang their own drums from here on out, though, so any further posts will be on topic for the actual events at hand.

Posted by: Stagyar zil Doggo | November 9, 2009 5:10 PM

bonze @170:

That was awesome. Its not like he's going to have time for millions of followers when the revolution comes, so why bother with it even now. Or was it that he's still working on a scientific method to communicate personally with millions of followers?

Reading that made trudging through the previous 169 comments worth it.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | November 9, 2009 5:17 PM

Do you believe the EHSC had malicious intent when they invited her to speak and then rescinded the invitation?

Certainly not... but however genuine their intent was, the fact remains that they refused to let a person speak, a person they invited initially because of her polarizing viewpoints and notoriety, based on content that to any rational person was, at worst, perfectly tangential to the proposed subject matter. Now whether or not the committee members were all aware of Susara's viewpoints and political leanings has been a subject of debate, and I concede that perhaps she was not as well known as I assumed she must be to a society such as this... but if that was the case, it's still a poor excuse for the behavior. Even if no-one knew of her viewpoints, there is nothing in that speech that should cause an "Ethical Humanist" to run and hide, or insist upon censoring the speech in any way. No, an "Ethical Humanist" would let her have her say, unfiltered and uncensored, and then let her be subject to the reaction, be it applause, derision, or complete disinterest.

What do you think Sunsara's intent was when she went to the Sunday event and then ignored the request to depart?

To make a scene. To garner attention. AND to make a point that the EHSC engaged in an act of censorship... some of her motives I think were noble... others, self serving and intentionally confrontational.

For me, it's hard to make the censorship charge stick when she's speaking at an EHSC event, the night before.

That's a pretty narrow definition of censorship, then... look, if you go to a conference, and you are the keynote speaker, and the organizers tell you that you can present your full speech at a small breakout session, but you can only give your speech to the large keynote audience if you put in "these alterations", they are engaging in censorship, regardless of the fact that they let you present your entire speech before.

Posted by: Pope Maledict DCLXVI | November 9, 2009 5:27 PM

Hi Hieronymous | November 9, 2009 4:56 PM @ #167,

read one of the comments in the previous thread for the requested synopsis of Sunsara's Sunday talk to the EHSC - there is not very much at all to suggest it would have been off-topic, and I find myself in more or less solid agreement with several comments elsewhere in that thread by PZ, e.g. comment #35. The EHSC seems to have wanted to micro-manage what Sunsara could and could not say to the Sunday gathering, or otherwise came up with a false explanation for the disinvitation. Hmm.

Posted by: Pope Maledict DCLXVI | November 9, 2009 5:30 PM

Lev Bronstein | November 9, 2009 5:20 PM @ #177

PZ, your little censor just daily proves what a coward you are.

When you have something interesting to say, I'm sure PZ will let you have your soapbox. Until then...

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | November 9, 2009 5:33 PM

Ahhh... so my post at #162 does indeed have a target...

so... to #177 and #178...

read it... then fuck off.

Posted by: Rrr | November 9, 2009 5:42 PM

Bronstein, Ulyanov, Maledick 666 and IceDick:
Methinks ye be the same weasel.
Or maybe it's just the Myth of Fingerprints (c) PSimon/Bard

Posted by: Pope Maledict DCLXVI | November 9, 2009 6:03 PM

Rrr | November 9, 2009 5:42 PM @ #183

You seem to be under a misapprehension. C_E has duly pointed out that "Bronstein" and "Ulvanov" are very likely the same troll who was booted out back around post #162. Morphing is one of certain banning offences here; quotemining as opposed to fashioning an argument yourself is not viewed with favour; and I'm fairly certain I'm distinct from Richard Eis. Are you a weasel?

LOL at your nickname for me: yes I am male, and I have one, but not 666.

PMaL

Posted by: Paul | November 9, 2009 6:10 PM

@182

Fair enough, but I think it arguable that whenever one has a top-down, state-imposed government (communist or fascist or theocratic), the likelihood of this result is very high.
...
But I also think it is naive to dismiss the fact that communist states in practice have all been implemented in this fashion. At the very least, it suggests that there is that inherent danger (not inevitability, but risk) to that form of state-imposed government.

I definitely agree, and that's why I'm not a Communist. However, to me that says that the failing isn't with the idea of Communism or Communism itself, it's just that us poor flawed humans can't be trusted to make it work. And as a result, it pains me when I note that people start the sliming and the ad hominem attacks when they see the word Communist. I think Communist solutions are wrong, whether their motive is that that they want to rule over others as part of the "vanguard Party" or they are just insufficiently cynical (or insufficiently informed) and think such an idealized system is more likely to yield positive results than a other economic systems. But that is no reason to withhold reasoned discussion and debate.

Thanks very much for the exchange!

Posted by: Peter G | November 9, 2009 6:19 PM

Very True Dark Matter@174 Also now evident is the drama that will ensue should Sunsara and her entourage be invited to participate in any public engagement. It is not true that there is no such thing as bad publicity.

Posted by: Paul | November 9, 2009 6:25 PM

She should have been allowed to speak. But I do have a problem with labeling the EHSC as an "Unethical Organization" based on this one event.

Nobody is making a big deal about the invitation being rescinded. Try to keep up. It lacks taste and can be argued to be unethical, but the bigger issue is the way they hired an undercover officer and talked up the danger of a scary Communist coming to the building, escalating tension to the point where the videographer gets roughed up and arrested. It only gets worse when you take into account the EHSC representatives that came to Pharyngula to assassinate the character of Sunsara and her videographer, so eager to post and excuse the event that they contradict each other on their own stories as well as contradicting the report put out to the police blotter. Then they decided to point out that the videographer is an ex-convict, which was somehow supposed to actually be an argument as to why it was just and right and ethical that the police were called and he was beaten (even though they didn't know this until days after the act, which is why it was part of a later wave of character assassination/damage control yesterday and today).

They really, really come off as the unethical party here. Next to a Maoist. It would be funny if it wasn't sad.

(And before I get jumped on for that, remember that the inverse statement is that the "Communist party" (whatever that is) is unethical for some trifling events that have occurred over the last century.)

The Communist party was bad, therefore Sunsara should be shunned and her videographer beaten? Just because you try to act like it's a low key offhand statement doesn't mean you're not responsible for actually thinking about the point you're making before clicking post. And that's a really poor point.

Posted by: Comrade Bill | November 9, 2009 6:33 PM

I’m not a member of the RCP. I just believe 99.8% of what they do. I wonder if all those who keep spouting the same old capitalist ruling class molded nonsense about communism think that we’ve never heard it before? We are well aware of the lies that are spread about communism by the capitalist ruling class who, like a creationist teaching a biology class, have an obvious interest in making it look as bad as possible.

There is the constant chant that millions died under communism. There is no doubt that the socialist transition to communism is full of conflict. What has to occur is that all of the means to produce goods have to be placed into common ownership so that we can produce goods for need rather than profit. Well, those who currently own those means don’t like that idea at all, and will shoot us and pay others to shoot us if we try. This same capitalist ruling class has state power backing them, and overwhelming control of the public opinion-molding machine (TV, newspapers, textbooks etc.. everything people look to when trying to determine what is normal in their society). Even if we employed the most peaceful methods one can to try to achieve the goals that are absolutely essential to emancipate all of humanity, they will use their elevated status to mold public opinion about us and before long even other poor people will come shoot at us.

Totalitarianism: Bob Avakian, Chairperson of the Revolutionary Communist Party, speaks about the danger of the vanguard turning into it’s opposite. It would definitely raise an eyebrow if he didn’t.

No one is advocating that we do the same thing exactly as Mao. We acknowledge that their were shortcomings in the two socialist revolutions of last century and look to build upon their great accomplishments and learn from their mistakes. However, most of what you all say about the supposed wrong-doings and shortcomings of communism stems directly from a false, ruling class molded education about the subject and the fact that people have their sights trapped in the dungeon of the capitalist system and analyzing through its methods and results.

An excerpt from Revolution newspaper #170

"But people are too messed up. It's just human nature for things to be this way, and it can't be changed."

Yes, it can. It has happened before—when people have risen up to make revolution. It can and must be done again—and it can and must go even further. We, in our millions and millions, can change ourselves and fit ourselves to rule and remake society in the interests of humanity—but we can do this only as we fight to change the larger conditions, to throw off oppression, as we join with others, throughout the world, to change the whole world. This is what our Party means when we say: Fight the Power, and Transform the People, for Revolution.

Posted by: Red John | November 9, 2009 6:36 PM

If Maoists were derailing threads as often as Libertarians, yes, they would be rebuked, chastised, and sometimes banned.

It's not happening.

Makes you wonder who the real evangelical fanatics are, doesn't it?

This

Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2009 6:40 PM

Of course, if she had rephrased her blurb to show her outline for secular morality rather than emphasize her definition of the status quo, there would be no grounds of topicality

Note - she wouldn't have to edit one iota of her speech at all. Just rephrase the outline to have it show its relevance to the topic at hand.

How big of you.

But I do have a problem with labeling the EHSC as an "Unethical Organization" based on this one event.

I have a problem with your failure to read or comprehend what PZ wrote here.

Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2009 6:45 PM

defensive hostility ... misrepresent me and tear me down ...

Hypocritical much, Bob?

Sorry, but you're clearly the one misrepresenting.

Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2009 6:56 PM

In any case, I have never denied that there might indeed be a way to get to a communist utopian state without totalitarianism, just that history suggests it is not at all easy -- I don't know of any example.

Unless there are examples of utopian states of any sort, this says nothing of any value.

Posted by: windy | November 9, 2009 7:05 PM

There is the constant chant that millions died under communism. There is no doubt that the socialist transition to communism is full of conflict. What has to occur is that all of the means to produce goods have to be placed into common ownership so that we can produce goods for need rather than profit. Well, those who currently own those means don’t like that idea at all, and will shoot us and pay others to shoot us if we try. This same capitalist ruling class has state power backing them

So are you saying that millions of Ukrainians starved because the state power was backing them?

Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2009 7:12 PM

the EHSC rescinding a tentative invite to a speaker was less unethical than that speaker showing up anyway to crash the party, so to speak

The EHSC acted against their principles, whereas Taylor acted according to her principles; she explained in the video linked from PZ's previous article why she felt morally compelled to do what she did.

As long as you are making such comparisons, which is less unethical, Sunsara Taylor showing up at EHSC to give them one last opportunity to "do the right thing" in her opinion, or PZ Myers smashing communion wafers that some people think are literally the body of their savior? Please provide detailed guidelines for making such comparisons that everyone can apply objectively.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | November 9, 2009 7:29 PM

David Marjanović, OM #46

The biggie is that Marx had his pseudoscientific theory about the inevitable development of society: slaveholder society –> feudal agrarian society –> capitalist industrialized bourgeois society –> socialism ("each according to their abilities") –> communism ("to each according to their needs").

Marx was a firm believer in capitalism. He said that capitalism was necessary since it promoted the efficient development of production. He was also right that capitalism promotes excessive inequalities. According to Marx, the late capitalist era would see extremely efficient production generating great wealth which would be concentrated in the hands of a tiny minority. The proletarian majority would be live in poverty and squalor. But when comes the Revolution, the awesome production would be distributed in an equitable fashion and everyone would be happy, due to the legacy of capitalism.

Marx claimed the Revolution would be sudden, violent, and take place in the most highly industrialized countries (he felt Germany, the US and Britain were the most likely candidates for Revolution). What he didn't see was that in democracies the proletarians could vote for redistribution of wealth, allowing them to get a decent share of goods without a revolution. It was in agrarian, feudal countries of Russia and China where the unhappy proletarians and the more numerous peasants supported revolutions to redistribute wealth.

Posted by: Peter G | November 9, 2009 7:40 PM

That's a pretty fair summary 'Tis Himself. Marx also missed the inevitability of the leadership of the proletariat replacing the capitalist minority with themselves. For the good of the masses, of course.

Posted by: Pacal | November 9, 2009 7:53 PM

Re: Paul No. 171

No, the implication I was making is that Communism has been so thoroughly demonized in modern history that even if a country thought it was the best thing for their people, trying to go Communist would mean the world's biggest superpower would consider you a target. In such an atmosphere it is somewhat disingenuous to point at nobody trying it and say "of course it doesn't work, past implementations failed and nobody is trying it now".

So-called Communists have been quite throughly effective in demonizing themselves. What with assorted mass murdering and violenr oppression all over the world. From Stalin's Purges to Mao's slaughters to Pol Pot and North Korea's famine, and a myriad of lesser of atrocities to say nothing of supressed freedom and lack of Democracy all for peoples "real good", they don't need anyone to demonize them they have managed to do a excellent job of turning themselves into demons without the help of anti-Communist propagandists already.

Besides what "Communist" should be shorthand for most of the time is terms like "Stalinist", "Marxist-Leninist" etc., all of which indicate believers in the establishment of one party police states.

The almost universal tendency of Communist dominated states to turn into one party tin pot Dictatorships should be a powerful indication that there was something seriously askew with some of the ideological underpinnings of Communist movements.

As for trying it. Well if you mean in its command economy, "planned" Stalinist form; it does have a tendency not to work very well and where it does work to break down over time. It seems to have virtually no ability to compete with Capitalism in the medium or long term.

Supposidly this type of economy was superior to Capitalism and could out compete it. Further certainly when Communists took power they expected and in fact counted on the opposition of Capitalist powers. The fact that in the end they (the command economies) could not compete with Capitalism merely indicates that they were wrong about the advantages of the command economy over Capitalism.

As for what the quote above is actually referring to by implementation. Well if you mean "Communism" or "Socialism", well there have been no past implementations of this at all it has simply never been tried. The command economies propagandisticaly labeled "Socialist" were state run and directed by a small elite running the state and have a lot more similarity to pre-Capitalist states in Europe and Asia than to any so called "Social" ownership of production.

Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2009 7:58 PM

thread derailment: is this a surprise

What isn't a surprise is that people insist on talking about Maoism and Communism and even accusing PZ of "fall[ing] just short of promoting Communist ideology here" when PZ has repeatedly noted that they aren't the point.

given that you can't fill a large lecture hall with all the Maoists in America?

But apparently we'll be seeing them spamming all the threads of Pharyngula any minute now.

Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2009 8:02 PM

Beware of Godwin's Law TM.

Godwin's Law is a tautology, moron -- look it up.

He made no such argument

You're a liar and a fool; he wrote "If the EHSC was doing the wrong thing in trying to sic the police on the cameraman, shouldn't there be even more outrage at the police than at the EHSC?" Note the premise. Oh never mind, you're too stupid to get it and too stupid to bother with.

Posted by: Comrade Bill | November 9, 2009 8:07 PM

to #211

Marx said (paraphrasing) that the ideas of any age are the ideas of the ruling class. Marx correctly understood what is concentrated in the following quote:

"In a world marked by profound class divisions and social inequality, to talk about “democracy”— without talking about the class nature of that democracy and which class it serves—is meaningless, and worse. So long as society is divided into classes, there can be no 'democracy for all': one class or another will rule, and it will uphold and promote that kind of democracy which serves its interests and goals. The question is: which class will rule and whether its rule, and its system of democracy, will serve the continuation, or the eventual abolition, of class divisions and the corresponding relations of exploitation, oppression and inequality." - Bob Avakian

As long as individuals are allowed to own the means of producing the goods that are required of us to survive we are living under the dictatorship of the capitalist ruling class. The capitalist ruling class have overwhelming control of the public opinion-molding machine that fashions what society believes is "normal" behavior and use it to serve their interests, to play on our natural fears which altogether produces this effect of a society largely molded to their liking. They don't even have to use whips anymore in most cases just a TV will do. They don't just control their ability to rule over us through the ballot box, they control our entire social environment, flow of goods, flow of ideas *cough* and monopoly on the use of "legitmate" violence etc..

Posted by: truth machine | November 9, 2009 8:18 PM

Comrade Bill, how about responding to windy's point in #207? You started out appearing to respond to the charge that millions died under communism, saying that the transition to communism is "full of conflict" (a nice euphemism for mass death), but then but then started talking about the capitalist ruling class with state power backing them -- which doesn't seem apropos to what was to be explained.

Posted by: Comrade Bill | November 9, 2009 8:42 PM

I don't accept what the capitalist ruling class narrative about what happened in the previous revolutions anymore than what I listen to what a creationist tells me about evolution. What about the millions that die every year of malnutrion and other treatable conditions that I can see evidence of before my eyes under this capitalist system?

I know Lamarck was wrong. Then there was this whole issue of the war..If you won't say that Lamarck and bad decisions made in the first mass social experiment of its kind in the history of ever, then I won't use just George Washington as my principle objection to capitalism. If you can identify something that shows that communism inevitably leads to bad farming practices and the starving of millions of poor people then I'll have to reconsider what it will take to eliminate capitalism.

Posted by: heironymous | November 9, 2009 8:47 PM

Paul@193 -

"Nobody is making a big deal about the invitation being rescinded."

Have you read the thread? That's _exactly_ what we were discussing. When i brought the below up (post 143), I was accused of arguing strawmen:

"2) Sunsara Taylor and her group willfully provoked a disturbance at the EHSC private event and are wholly to blame for the unfortunate incident involving the police at the Sunday meeting."

"they hired an undercover officer and talked up the danger of a scary Communist coming to the building, escalating tension to the point where the videographer gets roughed up and arrested."

That's an interesting perspective. Note - my quote from 143 was my opinion based on the facts I've read.

Let me ask you why you think the EHSC deliberately "escalated the tension" at one of their own meetings. It doesn't make sense. Why might Sunsara Taylor and her comrades provoke a confrontation?

Posted by: bonze | November 9, 2009 8:49 PM

truth machine #217

What isn't a surprise is that people insist on talking about Maoism and Communism and even accusing PZ of "fall[ing] just short of promoting Communist ideology here" when PZ has repeatedly noted that they aren't the point.

Personally I was agreeing with PZ on this... until I dug around a little and discovered that Sunsara Taylor is basically the public face of Chairman Bob's Revolutionary Communist Party and its revolting ideology and denialism.

Back in the early days of Internationalist Communism, decent, intelligent folks (like Frederik Pohl) were sucked into the CP by an attractive line: we're for social justice, the rights of labor, we're against war, we're against the fascists and Nazis, we're against racism, we're for equality for women, we're for science and against superstition. (Just so, Sunsara Taylor is for social justice, against war, against the oppression of women, and against superstition.)

Every rational person jettisoned all attachments to the Party in 1939 when the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact was signed, and "Internationalist" Communist parties engaged in insane ideological contortions to justify it. That's because... they were fronts. Imperialist fronts. Tools. Stalinist tools. (Just so, Sunsara Taylor is ultimately for... Chairman Bob.)

There were still apologists, but as time went by, they just looked more and more foolish as the facts leaked out. Do we really need to live through an instantiation of Chairman Bob's post-democratic paradise to discover its fruits? (He assures us there's something better than democracy!)

Apologists for Stalin and Mao do not deserve the time of day, much less the privilege of speaking before any group that calls itself Humanist. Would you defend, say, such a privilege for a member of the Aryan Nations?

Posted by: CalGeorge | November 9, 2009 9:07 PM

"Apologists for Stalin and Mao do not deserve the time of day..."

No, no, no. There you are wrong. You obviously don't read Slavoj Žižek!

http://www.brooklynrail.org/2008/06/books/nonfiction-stalin-was-right

Posted by: - | November 9, 2009 9:22 PM

Using Ms. Taylor might offend if it's Mrs. Taylor or Miss Taylor. So I've frequently used Sunsara - not out of disrespect, but rhetorical expediency.

Just call her Taylor. That's what you'd call a man.

Posted by: David Estlund | November 9, 2009 9:33 PM

"Using Ms. Taylor might offend if it's Mrs. Taylor or Miss Taylor."

Heironymous, I don't believe you understand. Calling Mrs. Taylor Miss Taylor might offend. Calling Miss Taylor Mrs. Taylor might offend. That's why we have the honorific of "Ms." In fact, you're supposed to use Ms. in deference to any woman you don't know, as either Mrs. or Miss are inappropriate generally for professional use. The marriageability of the woman is not up for discussion.

Posted by: Peter G | November 9, 2009 9:40 PM

H@227 "Why might Sunsara Taylor and her comrades provoke a confrontation?" While bringing along her personal vidographer? Generating a little publicity in attempt to rise out of obscurity springs to mind.

Posted by: truthspeaker | November 10, 2009 12:00 AM

Posted by: Jack | November 9, 2009 11:28 AM

Funny - I missed the bit where the CEHS provided evidence of what Koger did to justify the treatment he received from the police. Can someone point that out to me?

He's a Bad Person™. That's all the evidence they need.

Posted by: Tulse | November 10, 2009 12:16 AM

If you can own nothing, no animal, human or otherwise, will work for that nothing.

What an idiotic statement -- no animal except for humans "owns" things. And there are plenty of creatures who live and "work" (another human concept) communally.

Posted by: Carolyn Ann | November 10, 2009 12:39 AM

Sorry, David - I did misread you! ...

I have work to do too: dull grey corporate work oppressing entrepreneurs.

=====

Red John, that is my opinion. I don't need to cite references for an opinion. :-) If you do need a reference, might I suggest Maoist China, the Soviet Union, Albania, East Germany, and a few other places. You know: places where economic development was stymied because the collective is important than the individual. Where freedom and individual rights are replaced by collective demands and gulags. Places where you can be imprisoned for disagreeing with the collective, well - disagreeing their bosses. China still has a "communist" leadership; criticize it, get a nice long vacation: room board and daily beatings included. Do it enough and your family gets the bill for the bullet they put in your head. Oh yeah, communism sure is fabulous.

I'll take capitalism, any day. I have an idea for a product, I don't need to ask permission. I just need to sell it. Who cares if it's useful, useless, amazing or banal. That I can simply decide to build something and sell it is wonderful. Who cares (beyond myself) if I succeed or fail? It's the simple fact that I can try that makes capitalism so wonderful.

I also like personal responsibility. I am responsible for my life, no one else. You are responsible for yours. Communism avoids that by making the collective more important than the individual. But if personal responsibility is important within communism, then the individual has to be more important than the collective. Ergo, communism is hypocritical and corrupt.

(Sorry, I got carried away there.)

Nerd of Readhead: Get your pronouns right, please? And you might consider /dev/null instead. It's more permanent. :-)

Celtic_Evolution: Please get your pronouns right. Funny, I could say the same thing about your posts. I did try to understand them, though.

Hairhead: You and I disagree. Who cares? What's the matter? I poke fun at you because you swear at me, get all childish and call me names and you don't like it? Oh, pity, pity.

Oh, my apologies. That little sentence about being banned should have been deleted, but I forgot to do that.

Matt Penfold: There's this thing called sarcasm. I use it sometimes. (Apparently to little avail, but that's life, I guess.) I used it in my response to you.

First things first: I don't give a hoot about upsetting people. I try not to do so deliberately, but if my opinions are not liked, then all I can say is "tough tiddlywinks".
You can, of course, assume any old thing you want. Hairhead says I'm a "fucking liar", so you might want to build upon that. Or not. Your choice.

Secondly, I didn't feel like reiterating my points. If you want to know what they are, use your own time to read my posts. I decline to provide you with mine. :-)

As a quick aside (?!), I don't assume my rights exceed anyone else's; unlike Sunsara Taylor and those who fail to see how she bullied the Ethical Society, facilitated a situation where a man got arrested and manufactured her little confrontation.

See! I can re-iterate my point! Who'da thunk it? :-)

I'm really so sorry I didn't agree with y'all on what the point was. Perhaps you might provide a map, next time? With explicit instructions stating that I need to follow your lead. You know, lest I forget? Or dangerously develop my own opinion on what is important.

Knockgoats: It's not my opinion that "American cops will arrest and charge [...] for talking out of turn." I've already stated that. And yes, I think the Ethical Society was justified in calling the cops. They were certainly within their Constitutional rights. Or did you miss the bit about Ms Taylor (and you) presuming her rights exceeded those of the society?

Cruithne: Yes. Push a cop, go to jail. If you push a cop to save his or her life, I doubt you'd be prosecuted. Given a medal and a 3 minute segment on the local news, perhaps. Push a cop in an aggressive manner (the simple act of pushing qualifies) and the cop will arrest you. It's fairly simple; right or wrong doesn't really enter into it. Do I really have to consider inserting the entire prosecutorial and judicial systems into my summary?

For an example of how I view freedom, consider that your right to swing your fist (in my direction) ends at the tip of my nose. If you push me, physically, I will call the cops and I will press charges. Is that somehow wrong?

If you lead a non-violent protest on my driveway, I would call the cops and have you, at the very least, removed. Arresting and charging you with criminal trespass would definitely be a preference. My land, my rules. Public land, public rules. It's really simple.

On my property I can dictate who can enter it, who can stay on it, who is disinvited and who will be removed. I can call the cops to help me remove those who are no longer invited to stay. (I am not responsible for how the cops behave once they get here, however.) I can make those decisions based on reasonable premise, or for no reason at all. if you don't like it, you can stand on the (public) road passing my property, dodge the various vehicles that zoom by and protest to your hearts' content.

So yes, I do understand this whole freedom thing. Sorry about that. :-)

Carolyn Ann

Posted by: Gen Jack Ripper | November 10, 2009 1:09 AM

#113
What threat does a camera pose you, that you are so opposed to its running? I mean, man: He's got a cellphone with a lense... And he's using it!

IT'S A TERRORIST CELLPHONE!!11!

Yours in purity of essence,
Brigadier General Jack D. Ripper

Posted by: truth machine | November 10, 2009 2:37 AM

Sadly I cannot alter my dismissive language to suit your whim.

I didn't say anything about my whim, cretin.

Posted by: windy | November 10, 2009 3:20 AM

Comrade Bill:

I know Lamarck was wrong. Then there was this whole issue of the war..If you won't say that Lamarck and bad decisions made in the first mass social experiment of its kind in the history of ever, then I won't use just George Washington as my principle objection to capitalism.

It's kind of hard to tell what you're trying to say here? Something about Lysenkoism?

Revolution is one thing, but don't you think people should have some choice about participating in a "mass social experiment"?

Posted by: truth machine | November 10, 2009 3:31 AM

it will not earn you your choice of Pharyngula mug or tee-shirt

I've got something better: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/molly.php

Posted by: truth machine | November 10, 2009 3:48 AM

I don't accept what the capitalist ruling class narrative about what happened in the previous revolutions

So you're denying that millions died? Why didn't you just say that instead of the BS about the socialist transition to communism being full of conflict?

anymore than what I listen to what a creationist tells me about evolution

That's really, really poor analogy, especially on this blog. See, we discount what creationists say about evolution because it's demonstrably wrong.

What about the millions that die every year of malnutrion and other treatable conditions that I can see evidence of before my eyes under this capitalist system?

What about it? (Is logic also something to be rejected because it is favored by the capitalist ruling class?)

I know Lamarck was wrong. Then there was this whole issue of the war..If you won't say that Lamarck and bad decisions made in the first mass social experiment of its kind in the history of ever, then I won't use just George Washington as my principle objection to capitalism.

Aside from the tortured and incoherent grammar, are you sure you don't mean Washington Irving? Those similar names can be confusing.

Posted by: Richard Eis | November 10, 2009 5:13 AM

1 - The person you are sending the police after really did something wrong as far as the police can honestly tell, or 2 - The police are being corrupt if they're allowing themselves to decide whom to manhandle and arrest based on taking orders from non-police rather than based on what they witness themselves.

Well, you missed out 3: telling them that a dangerous communist is going to turn up uninvited at your church and deliberately try to cause trouble so a pre-emptive strike is necessary.

Hey, it's what i'd do... then its the police in trouble rather than my "ethical" church.

Posted by: Godspot | November 10, 2009 7:49 AM

#31 Matt Penfold

Yes, one of the many things that Marx got wrong was moderate improvements in social justice (the rise of labor unions, progressive taxation, etc.). Marx's vision had things getting worse and worse, while the bourgoise who held the power never gave an inch, until a revolution became inevitable. I'd like to think that even Marx would have to concede that these kinds of improvements would spell the death knell of his predicted revolution, but who knows. I have always been puzzled by that, especially since he wrote "Das Kapital" in the UK, which has a long record of the ruling elite giving way enough to avoid serious violent confrontation with the working class.

Sorry to comment so late on this one, but since I'm currently reading "Capital", maybe I can shine some light on this. "Capital" is half economy book and half economic history of England (mostly 19th century). The latter parts are definitely a better read. There are chapters on the struggle for a shorter working day and other worker rights, like a ban on child labour.

Class struggle consists not only of workers' resistance (let alone revolution) but also the actions of members of parliament, kind hearted industrialists etc.

According to Marx this can aleviate the dire circumstances of workers, but never completely resolve the tension between capital and labour, because they have opposite interests. Capitalists need to up their profits, the brunt of the costs (in lower wages, longer working hours, unemployment) are on the workers. So the struggle continues as long as capitalism does.

Posted by: dk | November 10, 2009 9:12 AM

the cops have provoked a riot at every leftist political protest i've ever been to. everyone with two brain cells to rub together knows that cops in the usa are completely unaccountable, generally have a hair trigger for using violence, and will claim assault on the slightest pretext. even if you don't have personal experience of this, just read the news sometime.

it's absurd for the ethical humanists to wash their hands of the consequences of calling the cops in this situation.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 10, 2009 9:37 AM

Shorter Carolyn Ann:

Blah blah blah, tit-for-tat sophomoric jab, I still don't get the point. The end.

There... that should save anyone the pain of actually sifting through that tl;dr sludge at #243.

Posted by: Carolyn Ann | November 10, 2009 11:03 AM

David, perhaps I didn't side step the whole ethics thing?

Which part of the ethics of the whole thing am I supposed to have missed? The ethical concerns I see differently, or the ones I thought irrelevant?

- Sunsara Taylor was unethical when she imposed herself upon the Ethical Society
- She imposed herself on others; she deemed that her "rights" exceeded those of others
- Because she had the capability to disrupt a private meeting, she did so
- Since when has it been ethical to throw a public hissy fit?
- Ms Taylor should have known that a violent outcome was possible. If she didn't, she's as naive as she is fallacious
- She manufactured the confrontation, with a destructive goal in mind
- She brought, as an active participant in her "protest" a man with a violent criminal past; that's, at best, irresponsible
- If that's a peaceful protest, I'd hate to see what a potentially violent one is
- Her careful explanation of what happened puts her ethics on display

- The Ethical Society was ethical in calling the police
- The Ethical Society is not responsible for the cops' actions
- As a private organization, the Ethical Society has a right to deny anyone their platform. This is ethical in the sense that was is mine is mine, and not yours to take. Ms Taylor, it could be argued, stole something (time, a sense of safety, the ability to determine what happened in their forum, etc) from the Ethical Society membership. When is it ethical to steal?
- It's not unethical to rescind invitations. In this case it turned out to be unwise, but that's because Ms Taylor is an arrogant and destructive person who lacks any sense of proportionality

- The cameraman allegedly pushed a cop. It is not unethical for the cops to respond with overwhelming force. Indeed, a proportional response would undermine police authority. For the cops to do their job, they have to have that authority; that's not ethics, that's practicality
- The cops might or might not have known who he was when they handcuffed him. It's irrelevant if they didn't know, and since when has it been unethical for the cops to handcuff someone they know is a violent felon, if they did know who he was?
- Cops can be unnecessarily violent; that is a different matter to what actually happened. If cop violence is the problem being discussed, then harping on about a single incident and illustrating it with other examples, allegations of pervasive cop violence and roundly condemning all cops because of some is not a discussion about ethics. It's a coffee klatch
- It is, apparently, unethical to defend the cops' actions

- If you hold the Ethical Society as responsible for the cops actions, you should also hold the Ethical Society responsible for the cameraman's actions (I don't see that happening, except in an "avoid personal responsibility at all costs!" kind of way)
- You should also hold anyone who calls the cops and gets somebody arrested as responsible for the arrestees entire incarceration
- If you're doing that, make sure that you don't hold the criminal responsible for their actions

Overall, I'd say that Ms Taylor is as unethical as she unscrupulous. She's as manipulative as she is arrogant. She's also noticeably careful with her definition of "truth". She, and her legions of fans, also have a distinct problem with personal responsibility: they hate it when its applicable to them.

Are those the ethics I missed?

Celtic_Evolution: If you have nothing but inane insult to add to the conversation, please go right ahead. :-) Your contribution is valued, and ignored.

It is interesting how some resort to sophomoric insult, and then claim I'm ignoring the point, or not addressing something or other. I think the eagerness to engage in insult is more telling than any potential argument. After all, it's much better to insult those who disagree with you! Or call them liars because they don't have the your intellectual rigor mortis.

Nerd of Redhead, Thank you! I was just waiting for that response! :-) I'm sorry my intellectual prowess isn't up to yours; indeed, I am but an intellectual amoeba, compared to you. Perhaps, as I get older, my intellectual prowess will grow to even a tiny bit of yours. And perhaps, as you get older, you might lose some of that arrogance and conceit?

Carolyn Ann

Posted by: Carolyn Ann | November 10, 2009 11:27 AM

Flex, I wasn't addressing all those. Besides, that's a different issue to actually having permission to sell something. I was avoiding, deliberately, the issue of unbridled capitalism. I have no desire to see the monopolies of the railway barons and the big bankers. They stifle capitalism, not enhance it. (Well, they abuse it, and then stifle competition, the life-blood of capitalism.) Interestingly, the Republicans are trying to create the same environment, despite their claims to be pro-business. Well, they are. It's just that the business' they support happen to be the big ones, and the religious ones.

Building codes are a bit older than contemporary political thought. The Babylonians promised to execute the first male child of any builder who built something that killed the man of the household. It was a powerful law, because even then building firms were passed from father to son. :-)

(Old building trade joke: "I'll try anything new... As long as my Dad did it first!" ... Sorry. It's one that never fails to make me smile. If it's obscure, you have to know that many building firms pass from father to son upon the father's death... :-)

I'm not sure communists got OSHA, the FDA, et al, passed. I think you'll find it was liberals. In Britain, some of the laws were passed by Conservatives. Nixon was also involved in some safety and workplace legislation.

But, be that as it may: I actually don't need permission to sell my product. Because my product has the individual at its core, in a communist society, I (likely) would need permission, and I would likely be denied it.

I have one or two laws I have to comply with, but that's not synonymous with requiring permission. No one can deny me the chance to sell my product based on prior review. If I fail to comply with the law, any action is reactive. If I inadvertently break some patent, I will be retroactively denied permission to sell my product. But to start selling it, because I comply with the laws I have to, and I don't think I've stepped into any patent problems (I'm checking as well as I can, but considering that patent applications are secret*, I can't be absolutely certain), I don't need any permission. I assume all the risk, and I either get the rewards of that, or I don't.

*Patent applications are secret, patents are not.

If people buy my product, great! If they don't, it's an expensive learning experience.

Carolyn Ann

Posted by: Marcus Ranum | November 10, 2009 11:38 AM

Abdul Alhazred writes:
How much "reaching out" makes up for all the mass murder?

It's the only ideology that outdoes religion when it comes to body count, and achieved that in less than a century.

Monarchy has done far worse.
So has capitalism.

Posted by: bullofthewoods | November 10, 2009 11:50 AM

Just for accuracy's sake, Carolyn Ann is a man.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 10, 2009 11:55 AM

Rev BigDumbChimps law

As any discussion on the Internet involving atheism continues, the chance of someone making historically myopic and ignorant comments involving Stalin approaches one.

Posted by: kopd | November 10, 2009 12:16 PM

Rev:
It would seem it doesn't just approach one, it slams headlong into it.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 10, 2009 12:22 PM

Just for accuracy's sake, Carolyn Ann is a man.

*looks for heavy duty fainting couch, sees sign that says "out for repairs"*

Maybe I just need lunch.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | November 10, 2009 12:59 PM

To resounding applause, I will not trouble y'all further. Don't worry about the door - there isn't one. The exit button is more than sufficient.

Let's all hope you'll be the very first person in the history of this blog to say that and actually mean it.

So please, let the door hit you hard in the ass on the way out.

Posted by: scooter | November 10, 2009 1:24 PM

HOLY CRAP !!!

This is the same shit that always happens to me. That's the main reason I stopped reporting on demonstrations and protests and started hanging out with atheists.

I got tired of getting arrested on 'catch and release' police practices, and getting my recording equipment banged up, and getting handcuffed in public.

Now I find out you can get dragged out of a Human Ethical rally and roughed up by Chicago cops??!! Where the fuck do they think they are? Philadelphia?

Fuck this shit, yall are crazy, I'm going back to church.

Praise Jebus
-s

Posted by: Paul | November 10, 2009 1:53 PM

It don’t matter to me if the ruling class all of a sudden said that 500 billion people died because of communists, it would only be further evidence of the need for revolution.

If you want anyone around here to take your beliefs seriously, you should sit down for a bit and try to consider what would make you rethink your beliefs.

I suggest not posting again until you come up with an answer to that question. People around here are generally not interested in being preached at, we want to be convinced through evidence. And you don't seem to have any idea how evidence works.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | November 10, 2009 2:02 PM

No worries, David Estlund... that was more an attempt at poking more fun at the
"deep rift" theme that seems to come up almost every day around here... not so much aimed at you...

Posted by: Marcus Ranum | November 10, 2009 3:49 PM

I can't help but wonder what would happen if Sunsara and acolytes were to turn up here and use this site to advance their agenda by spamming every thread with Maoist propaganda.

Mmmmm.... Fresh troll on a roll!!!

The Maoist propaganda would have to stand on its own. We've had libertarians, anarchists, theists, and probably even a few supply-side economists on the list. Ideas stand or fall on their own merits. Of course, they'd need to be thick-skinned enough to handle some of the chimp-screeching and poo-flinging that typifies pharyngula-style school of debate.

Posted by: Marcus Ranum | November 10, 2009 4:18 PM

Stalin and Mao doubled the life expectancy of people they did not kill.

So, if you kill half your population and double the life expectancy of the survivors, you're even, net/net!

Hey, if I kill everyone in the world except me, and I manage to make it to 80, think of the improved life expectancy in sub-saharan Africa!

Posted by: aratina cage | November 10, 2009 4:41 PM

Hey, if I kill everyone in the world except me, and I manage to make it to 80, think of the improved life expectancy in sub-saharan Africa!

Posted by: David Estlund | November 10, 2009 6:57 PM

Bonze, that study you site makes the clear assumption that vaccines prevent disease. Where's your proof?! It does explain why autism was so prevalent in the USSR, compared to more advanced nations that didn't force their citizens to vaccinate. Also, you've made me realize that I can appreciate "Life in Hell." I never thought it was funny, until I realized it's meant to be appreciated as meta-humor!

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 10, 2009 7:02 PM

Bonze, that study you site makes the clear assumption that vaccines prevent disease.

They don't?

Where's your proof?! It does explain why autism was so prevalent in the USSR, compared to more advanced nations that didn't force their citizens to vaccinate.

Uh, it does?

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 10, 2009 7:07 PM

Sorry. After I typed that I kind of figure that's what you were going for.

My bad.

Posted by: Flex | November 10, 2009 11:10 PM

Kagehi, thank you for your response.

I am aware that in many ways the barriers are the same. Including, in both capitalism and communism, the surrendering of ownership of ideas.

I was curious, however, why Carolyn Ann thought that any form of society, and it's associated government, would reject innovation.

I do have answers for that question, but I suspect that Carolyn Ann hasn't given it much thought and is, in fact, simply parroting some propaganda from a few decades ago.

Rejecting innovation is not a requirement for communism.

Posted by: Frank | November 11, 2009 3:07 AM

Uh... no. Life expectancy includes people who die from pneumonia because they've been forced to colonize Siberia with insufficient equipment or even the people who have been shot in the face for imaginary treason. The US life expectancy includes our 2.3 million people behind bars and our 20,000 people a year killed by gunshots. We're a very wealthy country, so we manage to have life expectancies that are the 34th best in the world.

Presumably if we killed less of our people, switched primarily to safer methods of travel, and provided universal healthcare, our life expectancy would shoot up substantially. Similarly, had the Soviet Union accepted he "morally unpalatable" tenets of actual biology and banished less people for thought crimes, their life expectancies would have gone up too.

Lack of health insurance kills 123 Amricans a day. Car accidents kill 131 Americans a day. We don't count our life expectancy as "Except for our blatant stupidity that kills thousands of our own people for no reason" and neither did the Soviet Union. So when they went from a life expectancy of 29 years for women to a life expectancy of 59 years, that includes their blatant stupidities.

Which is why bringing up those obviously avoidable deaths is a bad argument. It's clear that they could have done better at increasing survival rates with very simple changes. But their increase in survival rates was already very very good. Better than anyone has ever achieved in the same period.

Like I said earlier, if you want to go after them, go after them on things like environmental policy. Places where the objective overall numbers are really bad and it's not obvious that they could have done much better without completely rethinking the entire system. That's important. But "people died" frankly doesn't mean what y'all apparently think it means.

Posted by: astrounit | November 12, 2009 6:57 AM

It's clear that the Ethical Humanist Society of Chicago is a fake.

It's a "society" that poses, established by well-to-do north-side Chicagoans (ayup, towards Skokie), going through all the motions and formalities associated with a "society", pretending to an enhanced and enlightened view of humanism and ethics.

Unfortunately, it's a facade: many if not most of their membership (including their most influential set) are not particularly "humanist" nor "ethical" in their usual day-to-day beliefs or behavior.

That may sound harsh, but it is accurate. Not to single them out or overly disparage their members: they are simply composed of ordinary Chicagoans. Well-to-do sort, but not especially abberant.

But not particularly extra-humanist or ethical either.

It's just that their motivations rests on a "sense of community" and they like to be identified as "ethical humanists"...uh, because it sounds very noble and they can tell their friends at Kaffee Klatsches that they're members of an "ethical humanist" society.

Big bragging rights in social settings, ya know.

And, of course, they are (as PZ's previous post with the spokesperson's "explanation" demonstrated) very very VERY "democratic" about their doings.

Which makes them very very VERY proper. And very very VERY impotent.

Which also means that they are utterly devoted to refraining from any unnecessary boat-rocking and will do their level best to accomodate (oh yes, that word is written all over their thinking) the deviations from humanism and ethics they see.

It's a "society" devoted to exercising a tolerance towards people (including those within their own membership) who are NOT particularly humanist or ethical.

Back-asswards thinking.

I repeat: the Ethical Humanist Society of Chicago is a FAKE. Previous to this episode, they were a relatively benign fake, but they are a fake.

If I still lived on the north side and heard about this society, I would not have joined it. But if through some weird happenstance I had found myself to be a member, I would quit it.

Because its a fake. A PHONEY. It isn't what its facade pretends to be. It's all show, very little if any actual substance.

Now we can see how mindless band-wagoning can bite the wagon-drivers on the backside.

To the EHSC: try that on for a fit. Try on a little honesty and integrity and several other worthwhile virtues to see how it looks with your current garb. If the colors clash, never mind. Develop a new fashion. You can brag about your self-improvement at your next Kaffee Klatsch.

And don't forget to watch Oprah and attend to your daily scans of Huffington Post.

Posted by: bonze | November 12, 2009 11:43 AM

Frank #302

If someone from [Somalia] said "To heck with that, we're going Soviet model!" what would you say to them?

Um, they already did that, hence there's nobody left in Somalia calling for the return to an incompetent "Scientific Socialist" dictatorship.

And given those oh-so-reliable UN statistics on life expectancy, why wouldn't they give Juche a shot? Look at those stats for North Korea! Up up up! And the quality of life there really excels, because they're free from the hegemony of consumerist expectations, and get to enjoy regular public executions!

And you've completely failed to respond to my post #288: why is this peer-reviewed study unreliable? Why do the authors state that the Soviet statistics did NOT include deaths from war, famine, and the Gulag?

Posted by: bonze | November 14, 2009 10:30 AM

Bonzo, as long as you're conflating socialism and communism, I notice that you're leaving out Sweden and the UK and France, where their conservatives are flaming liberals compared to most Americans.

I'm not the person "conflating socialism and communism".

Siad Barre and "Scientific Socialism": "Siad Barre, socialist leader of the Somali Democratic Republic, proclaimed scientific socialism as the national ideology as a repudiation of atheistic, Soviet-style socialism."

And I don't think the BNP and National Front qualify as "flaming liberals" in any reasonable sense of the word.

As for Naomi Klein, the impression I have is that she's the left equivalent of Jonah Goldberg. I've never bothered to read their books, because I don't think caricatures of other people's ideas are useful for assessing them. While Klein might think that quoting Milton Friedman stating "Only a crisis -- actual or perceived -- produces real change" summarizes an indictment, I think he's uttering a truism.

Posted by: bonze | November 14, 2009 4:59 PM

Knockgoats

Nor as conservatives...

I think "conservative" is a content-free label appealing to emotion and longing for the Good Old Days rather than a label for a specific ideological program... which is why folks refer to "conservative mullahs" etc. etc. I don't know a lot about the BNP, but I imagine many of the people voting for them fancy themselves "geniune conservatives" rather than "reactionary crypto-fascist bigots".

When referring to the "National Front", I meant to indicate the French party. Le Pen is identified on wiki as a "nationalist conservative", rather than as a "reactionary crypto-fascist bigoted jerk".