The Moral Economy of Scale in Murder

George Rebane

 

RR reader, critic, and contributor Steven Frisch has a well developed and worthy of debate world view.  He posted a comment to some statements I made here regarding the history of death by government and, by implication, its portents for America.  Steve took my brief explication of 20th century state sponsored/executed mass murders to task, concluding with -

Murder is murder, by anyone, in anyone’s name, in the service of any ideology, regardless of the perceived threat from opposing views. I guess I wonder why someone would contend that Hitler was a third rate killer? Why would it matter to you to point out that Stalin or Mao killed more? Does it diminish in some way the evil of Hitler? Why compare? I am not sure that a moral economy of scale exists in murder.

Murder is the unlawful taking of human life, and knowing the history of mass murders carried out by the organs and institutions of state is important.  It is important to know the several such murderous destinations and the many paths which have led to them.  But most important of all is to recognize early and identify reliably the common element or idea that launched nations on such journeys of death.

“… why would someone contend that Hitler was a third rate killer?”  Because he was, and mass murderers and mass murders are the more horrible the more ‘massive’ they are.  We organize societies in recognition of this truth.  Given fixed resources which could save either a million lives or ten million lives, to which effort would we apply them?  With one bullet left, who would not aim at the maniac ready to kill ten rather than the shooter able to kill only one?  It would be immoral to countenance preventable death, and the more so as the number of preventable deaths is ignored in our decision.

"Why would it matter to you to point out that Stalin or Mao killed more? Does it diminish in some way the evil of Hitler?"  Pointing out the magnitude of Stalin’s and Mao’s crimes relative to Hitler’s does matter.  And yes, in a relative sense, it does diminish Hitler’s atrocities.  But the heart of the matter is what drove each national leader to those acts of mass murder on scales that stagger our understanding.  Acquiring this knowledge is critical to informing our future.

Each murderer knew precisely what he was doing, and each was more than willing to explicate the basis for his actions.  Each of these (and other lesser) murderers was driven by a similar, nay, identical ideology.  Each claimed that the deaths were justified and necessary in order to achieve an elevated order of man on this planet.  The killing of the undesirables was a necessity on the path to a more noble and pure collective of survivors.

 

Every one of these killers was a devotee of socialism and student of the 19th century political philosophers Karl Marx and Frederick Engels.  Their individual versions and methods differed but slightly, but their ‘results’ – levels of death and wholesale misery - differed greatly.  All of them believed that humans could achieve their highest potential within the collective, and anything standing in the way of such a cohesive collective should be and was summarily liquidated.

The path to such a glorious future became clear to several national groups in the late 19th century.  The United States then became, perhaps, the leading hotbed of socialism cum communism with the advent of the new liberals, or progressives, as they liked to call themselves.  Led by colorful and dynamic populist leaders like Teddy Roosevelt, they collected the political and social wisdom of contemporary mentors like Herbert Croly, Richard Ely, John Dewey, and Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes (each worth googling) into what would emerge as the Wilsonian dream at the end of WW1.  And with support of publicists like playright/author George Bernard Shaw, the American infection took hold, procreated, and is alive and well today.

The Great Depression was a crisis not to be wasted, and it gave FDR an unprecedented opportunity to implement the programs that launched America’s nascent version of socialism, all collected into what he called the New Deal.  It was a beginning that played well against the propaganda ‘news’ reels from the USSR then shown in movie theaters across the land.  Talk about putting on national blinders.

While Stalin was killing tens of millions by state executed starvation, Americans watched dancing peasants on collective farms, factory workers singing with steel furnaces in the background, and massive outflows from the turbines of newly built hydroelectric dams.  We were told that everyone had a job, everyone had healthcare, everyone could not be happier as they drew from the state according to their needs, and gave back according to their abilities.

“I am not sure that a moral economy of scale exists in murder.”  And that, dear reader, is the whole point of studying the relative efficiencies of mass murder and the ideological mandates that motivated them.  Different socialistic schemas could and would implement economies of scale in murder, and because of that each would be the greater danger to those not yet caught up in the terrible whirlwind.

American progressives and Russian Bolsheviks talked early of gas chambers as a tool for shaping society.  It was Hitler who ‘perfected’ their application.  But before Hitler, Stalin had already discovered more efficient means of killing entire populations that stood in his way.  Militarily enforced starvation during peacetime would and did kill people at the rate of 25,000 per day and back-to-back years with annual totals of ten million.  Hitler took six years to kill six million while having to conduct a world war.

Mao brought the moral and numerical economies of scale to their highest level yet.  During the two separate years-long mega-atrocities known as the Great Leap Forward (1958-60) and the Cultural Revolution (1966-76) he combined work and starvation to kill at yet to be achieved rates.  The conservative total is acknowledged between 70 and 100 million.  The Chinese who survived and can now tally up the dead put the total north of 130 million.  Today it is politically incorrect to bring up these sums to our dearest creditor.

Yes, it is indeed morally more reprehensive to kill a greater number than a smaller number of people.  And when the differences between the killing machines is in the tens of millions, it becomes a moral imperative not only to adjudicate them by magnitude, but also to study the greater ones in order to understand how they came to be so that we can avoid them.  Only the historically naïve see mild forms of socialism as stable ways to organize societies.  History shows that socialism is at best a speed bump on the road to totalitarian communism.

In the end we should disabuse ourselves of the notion that Hitler and cohorts put in place a rightwing extremist social order.  They were nothing but socialists derived from the same root as all the other forms.  They called themselves national socialists from which we derive Nazi.  The Bolsheviks Lenin and Stalin, along with Mao, had bigger plans and correctly identified themselves as international socialists.

Since the fall of the Wall their dream is alive and well.  It has now been repackaged in our public education curricula and displayed daily on the totems of our daily life that range from billboards to T-shirts and bathing suits.  Vehement denials by progressives of their socialistic coloring or goals are the expected constant on our mainstream media.  The camouflage is completed when the same progressives now consider being called a socialist akin to “name calling”.  Yet when talking among their own, they openly celebrate the legacy of Marx and Engels and their students Stalin, Mao, Che, Castro, … .

I don’t delude myself that this little summary is the final word on the topic.  Most (all?) of this is rejected by the rank and file who would identify themselves as progressives and support the current direction that our country’s leadership is taking us.  But it may yet serve a useful purpose if any such progressives remember these facts and get a hint of what’s ahead while they energetically work to better the lot of the common man.

While there is much overlap, morality is still culture specific.  In the Christian based culture of America and its secular humanist variants, I believe our society demands that the original thesis be reversed.  It is for us immoral to equate political killings large and small.  It is immoral for us to equate the singleton killer with a mass murderer, especially if that murderer has delivered death in the greater economy of scale.  It is immoral for us to wipe from our history any incidence of wholesale death – one sample cannot speak for the rest.  We can and must rank and rate historical killers that can serve as potential exemplars for today’s leaders who also seek to create new world orders.

Comments

[Ray Shine]

George
Why the montage of four photos? Three are obviously of organized totalitarian youth. The fourth appears to be a school hallway from some western country. Why is it in with the other photos? What are you trying to imply or infer?

[George Rebane]

These are pictures of state regimented youth paying obeisance to their leader. The one you question is a frame from the notorious YouTube video of kids in a Pennsylvania public school rehearsing 'MMM...MMM...MMM, Barack Hussein Obama'. The video was pulled after the indoctrination incident was made public on national TV. Apparently it was a bit too early to start disseminating such laudits.

[Michael Anderson]

Wow, this is some pretty heady stuff. I won't speak for Steve F., but probably what he means is that once you kill a million people you're in a whole new league. Sure, killing only 1 million people is better than killing 100 million, but I'm sure the 1 million wouldn't appreciate the split hairs very much.

Regarding socialism being "at best a speed bump on the road to totalitarian communism" I would like to know when a country like Denmark, for example, will be arriving at the totalitarian communist finish line. Also, in the US we tax our citizens to provide all manner of social services: roads, fire and police, military, for starters. Are those OK? Please provide a list of which amenities are "socialism" and which are necessary to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Where do you draw the line?

[George Rebane]

Good questions Michael. Denmark's 'arrival' is mostly up to the Danish. They and other EU socialists can continue playing their social engineering games as long as the US maintains its 12 carrier task groups and 7 expeditionary task groups at sea. When we withdraw as the world's sheriff, then all those idealists will have to buy and pay for their own guns, and Europe can return to its historical norms. But how and where will that extra money be extracted from their populations? Not everyone can play guns and butter.

And where do I "draw the line"? That's a very hard question that wiser heads than mine have not been able to answer. We have close to 53% of taxpayers already paying pittance or no federal taxes. Has the tipping point been passed? I don't know for sure, but it is likely that the Peter/Paul Principle will soon achieve runaway mode. I have written about this in The Union and on RR. Since we don't know the boundary, all we can do now is try to stay the stampede toward obvious socialism (and beyond). But, of course, the number of Americans so inclined is diminishing daily. Garrett Hardin explained this in the 'Tragedy of the Commons', and the economists/sociologists have explained it through 'The Great Doubling'.

[Account Deleted]

Paying for police protection and fire suppression services are not the issue. A president who brings into the White House folks who are avowed communists, admirers of Mao, Chavez (he just shut down another broadcaster) and Castro certainly is. A health care "reform" that starts out insisting that a citizen of the US is, just by his or her existence, guilty of an administrative crime is totally unacceptable to a free society. There is an excellent video on You Tube by Peter Tetteroo and Raymond Feddema on the current state of North Korea. No, we are not there yet, but it all starts with an attitude of what core values will be held to and what freedoms we will let slide, a little at a time. This country has already slid downhill in so many ways of public attitudes towards our constitutional responsibilities and freedoms. Just because it is a little at a time does mean the end result will be different from other failed societies.

[Michael Anderson]

"A health care 'reform' that starts out insisting that a citizen of the US is, just by his or her existence, guilty of an administrative crime is totally unacceptable to a free society."

Scott, what do you mean by this? Please explain the details, I had not heard of this claim before. Thanks.

[jeffpelline]

and the union gives this guy rebane a community platform. wow.

[Steven Frisch]

Well I asked the question kind of because this is the response I expected.

I am going to have avery busy week, but there are a few gems in here that over the next week I will respond to.

1) Regarding Hitler and the third rate killer comment "Because he was, and mass murderers and mass murders are the more horrible the more ‘massive’ they are. We organize societies in recognition of this truth". Hmmm..... George, I am still trying to figure out why is it so important that Hitler is a lesser evil than Stalin?

2) Nazism and Socialism are one and the same--this is a revisionist lie buddy. More later.

3) Equating the progressive movement in the US to the Communist movements of the Russian Revolution era? Nonsense.

4) FDR implemented socialism in America that had some relationship to the mass murders of Europe--once again an outright frigging lie.

5) Hitler did not kill "6 million" he was responsible for starting the war that led to the deaths of almost 70million people.

6) But this is the best "

Since the fall of the Wall their dream is alive and well. It has now been repackaged in our public education curricula and displayed daily on the totems of our daily life that range from billboards to T-shirts and bathing suits. Vehement denials by progressives of their socialistic coloring or goals are the expected constant on our mainstream media. The camouflage is completed when the same progressives now consider being called a socialist akin to “name calling”. Yet when talking among their own, they openly celebrate the legacy of Marx and Engels and their students Stalin, Mao, Che, Castro, … ."

What a bunch of bullshit. This is the equivalent of calling a whole group of people killers, many of whom are talking to you here right now.

Yet another example of you being an evil bastard and thinking you are going to be cute enough not to get called on it.

I have a direct question. Why would it be so important for you to insist that Stalin is worse than Hitler. You really did not answer the question. I suspect I know.

"

[Michael Anderson]

Steve F.,

My suspicion is that Stalin was responsible for more personal grief for George Rebane and his extended family than Adolf Hitler.

What do I win?...(-;

M.

[George Rebane]

SteveF, I was hoping that the difference between being on the road to a collective totalitarianism, and being an accomplished mass murderer would be clear. But I guess hyperbole still reigns.

On the rest of your points my explication must stand on its own and I await your expansions.

And here I thought that I went into great detail on answering the question of relative evil between Stalin and Hitler.

Your conclusion that I am an "evil bastard" supports my contention about those who are on the road to collective totalitarianism. It appears that you and yours will eagerly march me to the wall in the name of eradicating evil. That is something that I and mine will never do to you. Moreover, your right to identify me as "evil" is something that I hold sacrosanct. I am comforted that I cannot reply in kind.

[Steven Frisch]

I am not marching you to the wall ....and I never would...and you know that.
Calling a spade a spade and marching one to the wall are not the same thing.
yet another example......I honestly think you and Russ are nuts!

And no you won't call me evil, you did it already.

You sir are the master of hyperbole.

[Michael Anderson]

Again, can't speak for Steve, especially since I've never met him.

It does seem a jump, however, that your contention his calling you an "evil bastard" means he wants to march you to the wall. But I will let Steve answer this on his own.

I CAN say that I have no intention of marching anyone to the wall. And this brings "I and mine" comfort as well.

[Account Deleted]

Oh dear - first things first. The 2 versions of health care (Senate and House) both require that a person buy health insurance or they will be fined. All the time, every year of your life. It's not dependent on any income earned, or purchase made, or vehicle driven on the road. Just your existence mandates the purchase or you will be fined. It is completely unconstitutional to mandate that some one has to "buy" anything just to legally exist as a citizen. Next, NAZI refers to the National Socialist Party in Germany. They were certainly socialist in the way they ran the country. Nobody is calling anyone a mass murderer unless they are one. But mass murder by government always has a start in denying individual liberty and increasing central government control. World War II got started by the Germans, but the Soviets, Japanese, and Italians certainly did their part. You can't blame 70 million dead in WWII just on Hitler. The reds in the USSR, S.E. Asia, Cuba and China have slaughtered an unthinkable number of civilians during the last century. Most of it during a time when there was no overt war. No one is trying to downplay the evil of Hitler, just wondering why we see folks in this country (especially those in leadership) who praise dictators who were even worse. Why is it the left in this country gives a pass to these folks? I would howl bloody hell at Bush if he had some one in the White House who publicly praised Hitler, why shouldn't I be upset at Obama when he elevates to power self-declared communists and people who praise murderous despots? Not every country that could be called socialist is going to start killing off their citizens, but they can (and have) aided those that do. What I found most telling is the response to George's comments. Jeff is upset that the local newspaper allows open debate and freedom of speech. Steve thinks that George's ideas about freedom and trying to get folks thinking about the roots of genocide are another reason he is “an evil b-----”. I've certainly been exasperated at times with those I disagree with, but I have never thought or advocated that they not be allowed the same access to open public debate. Or that they are an evil anything because we see things differently. I look forward to an examination of the similarities and differences of the various despots of the last century and their roots in the “progressive” movement in the US and other countries.

[Michael Anderson]

Fair enough Scott. Yeah, the fines for not paying into the system seemed counterproductive to me as well. Not efficient.

I will use an analogy to explain my position. I am in the computer business, and as you might imagine we come across a fair amount of obsolete computer equ. in our day-to-day operations. It used to be that we would try to re-purpose this stuff, but most of it ended up in the landfill. In Europe about 2 decades ago, they adopted "cradle-to-grave" processes that made sure that valuable physical resources were not wasted by tossing them in the heap.

In the USA, because we are a nation of autonomous states (10th Amendment!), it is very difficult coming up with a common solution. Therefore, states on the cutting edge like California, have resorted to other means to capture the costs for getting rid of these toxic materials. That means a less efficient collector mechanism. There is now a tax/fee/whatever-you-want-to-call-it on all tech purchases in California that funds the responsible disposal of these items at the end of their useful life.

However, as a retailer, I have to collect these fees mid-stream instead of the more more efficient way of doing this using the European model, at the "cradle."

This totally unnecessary and burdensome waste of our company's time has a real effect on our growth potential and ability to create new jobs, which I am sure you are aware is where two-thirds of all new jobs are created in the USA.

[Russ]

Some thoughts from crazy Russ. In reading through this thread, I am reminded of Tom McClintock and his closing comment last night that when the opposing side starts calling you names, it is a clear indication that you have won the argument. They no longer have any intellectual ammunition and must resort to name calling to end the conversation.

I am currently working my way through F.A. Hayek's The Road to Serfdom. He was writing about the political and economic condition in Europe on the 20s-30s and the expanding interest in socialisms to solve the Europe's economic depression. There are a number of parallels with the conditions we find ourselves in today, the advance of socialism and the strangulation of the free market by our own government.

The Obama team wants to take control of our economy so they can exert fairness through central planning. To do so they must impose on the rest of us the code of values they think we are lacking. Thus, we must have universal health care, government control of the environment, distribution of wealth through taxation, while Obama and his team control the power and direction of our economic engines, think green. Similar socialist ideas were rampant during Hayek's tenure as an economist arguing the evils of socialism and the inherent dangers of central planning. More on this theme as I make more progress on The Road to Serfdom.

[Mikey McD]

I take offense to the "evil bastard" comment. How many lives would have been saved last century had more liberty minded thinkers (like Rebane) been allowed to warn individuals of totalitarian/socialist government means to progressive ends? Where would the USA be today without freedom of speech (protected by 2nd amendment) spreading liberty by way of the Rands, Mises, Hayeks, Bastiat's of the world?

When reviewing the atrocities of Mao, Hitler, Stalin I am repulsed by the individuals that went along with the party line (calling people "Evil Bastards" for going against the state?), pulled the proverbial triggers, or turned a blind eye to their fellow countrymen, countrywomen, and countrychildren.

[Dixon Cruickshank]

Steve you may not have the guts to pull the trigger but people like George would be the first to go - and comments like that were the actual trigger, in all 3 of those regimes, so lets not quibble but you always have to keep score. Seems kinda typical though, rather than debate the politcal issue argue which one was worse.

As to Russ's comment, it also means that the population becomes so desperate that they will give up anything and everything to survive - 3 more years and we certainly will be closer.

It takes years Steve - inch by inch, bean by bean

Whether you like her or not, I really think back to the last election - Sarah Palin actually ignited this commen sense hissy fit Americans are going through - and boy did we need it. I think if McCain had picked a run of the mill politian the Tea Party's never would have happened.

[Dixon Cruickshank]

Just heard a quote that Joseph Goebbels and the NAZI's apparently learned their lessons of propanganda from...... the American Progressives. Damn thats getting close to home Steve

[Steven Frisch]

You moron Dixon---read the posts. I am the one saying we should not argue "which one is worse", they are all worse! George is the one trying to say Stalin is worse than Hitler. What the heck is that? It is an apologists argument.

Can you please source the Goebbels quote? And leave it to you to consider a quote from Goebbels as a source in the first place. Do you think that maybe the master of propaganda was trying to legitimize his positions by associating with the Americans? That it was propaganda? That's kind of what Goebbels did you know!