Well, that was certainly Jim-bait, huh?

Yeah, I don't get it either.

China is sort of an interesting counterpoint to the idea that economic liberalization will be followed by political liberalization though. Still, I don't see the Cuban government having the wherewithal to withstand a lot of contact with the outside world, however. Large scale tourism, beyond the limited Canuck and Euro visitors could put a hurting on the government, real economic inequality being shoved in people's faces has a way of stirring up political pressure. While the Fidelistas have been quite cruel to individual dissidents, I don't think the government as a whole possesses the efficiency or cruelty that the Chinese government does, so increased contact probably would make more sense, and along the way the increased economic in-flux might actually benefit individual Cubans, albeit an odious regime would get a cut too...

I enjoy reading your blog -- trenchant, witty, well-written, etc etc.

But I am curious whether you really find Hugo Chavez to be a hero, or are you being ironic?

The problem with "collectivism" is that it never comes without the iron fist. The 20th century pretty much proved that. It might be nice if you could have collectivism without shutting down the press and revving up the secret police and then killing a bunch of people. This is probably what Lenin, Marx, Trotsky etc. may have hoped.

But it never works out that way. It really doesn't. Millions of people died to prove that point.

And the radicals and fashionable intellectuals (I apologize if I mistake you as one) are always the first people into the meat grinder when the Iron Fist comes. THAT is truly ironic.

So it seems to me that, while collectivism is a neat theory, its empirical results when applied to the essentially bloodthirsty chimpanzees that we are, always ends up in tears.

Thanks for listening.

ghostman,

i'll take a shot at a response. i hope you will find the spirit of the response satisfying (we love engaging with readers) even if it's substance is something you disagree with.

you point out that many cultures that have tried to rigidly organize their society, through collectivism or communism or socialism or some-other-ism, have eventually destabilized into an autocratic despotism. i will cede this point and although there's not much funny in the consequences of these regimes, the members of our group do sometimes joke about the same thing: how these movements of the people inevitably wind up as soul-crushing autocracies.

I'm guessing this might have been the post you were looking at:

http://www.racingunion.org/PermaLink,guid,a27bc107-de0d-4ee1-9ae6-1a3c27500aba.aspx

i wrote that post and i was trying to be playful with the idea that collective movements, while giving great lip service to helping the people, often devolve into chaos because people are fundamentally selfish. animal farm is the best example i can think of in terms of describing what i'm trying to get at here.

i would say initally, and as a point of interest, that few socialist experiments have had the chance to develop without interference from governments that feared their influence. when you look at the terrible things that happened in central america from the 1970's onward, and may still be happening, it's difficult to objectively say that socialism, etc won't work there because it never really gets a chance to develop unimpeded. there's ample evidence of the economic and politcal destabilization that has gone on. looked at another way, many people don't care much for the condition of cuba, because it's a socialist state, but is it worse off than the "westernized" countries that surround it like haiti or the domincan republic? i don't think you can simultaneously hold cuba up as a failure and recognize the other carribean countries as successes.

a point that i think lots of people miss is that causing human suffering is not unique to the ism's (i.e.communism, socialism, etc). the tragedy and consequences of colonialism are a perfect illustration of how free market economies (treating the people and resources of another land as something to be used as suits the nation that uses it) can cause equal amounts of suffering. look what we as a culture did to the native americans in the name of progress and prosperity.

please don't misunderstand this response as tit for tat type treacle. I agree with your final point, but I think it's actually much more broadly applied: we are all bloodthirsty chimpanzees. i don't think the ism's have cornered the market on exploitation.

as for chavez, i like him a lot. i think it is an interesting thing to consider whether the people of his particlar country would be better off if the chicago school of economics or the editorial staff of the wall street journal took over running the county.

best,
sg

Thanks. The part about socialism never being allowed to work and the experiment never being really tested is a good rhetorical argument. It is a good rhetorical argument because you can never prove it wrong. But that does not mean it is not wrong.

Alchemists always think that they will be able to turn lead into gold if they can just perfect the formula. They never admit that the whole enterprise can never work. They always think you just need to tweak it a little bit and then it will work.

I also take your point about the victims of colonialism. It is no insult to you to point out that this is the far left's standard response when "free men, free markets" guys like me start talking about Stalin and Mao.

The problem is that we agree with you. No reasonable person these days is advocating slavery or colonialism (please, please don't call free trade or our misadventure in Iraq "colonialism"). But people, stunningly, still advocate capital-S Socialism and still praise people like Hugo Chavez as heroes. How can he still be called a hero after he has started shutting down TV stations and newspapers? You don't need to know anything more after that. You really don't.

And it always happens that way. ALWAYS.

The Wall Street Journal guys may advocate a particular brand of free market capitalism and muscular foreign policy that you disagree with (I disagree with some of it also). But at least they separate the substance from the procedure. I.e., they fully supoport the process that allows people to disagree with them by electing democrats, or writing op-eds in the New York Times or creating amusing internet blogs about leftward politics and bike racing using kitschy soviet iconography.

But the Chavistas and the ayatollahs and the fuhrers and the Falwells and the Putins always want to conflate substance and procedure. You WILL agree with me and if you don't I will destroy all of the processes that you might use to disagree with me. They always start hauling people away in the middle of the night and locking them up and killing them (well, not Falwell, but he probably would if he could).

At least free market democracies have a self-correcting mechanism. Slavery and (at least traditional)colonialism are gone, as are many of the rough edges that made capitalism not-so-fun before FDR. It is not perfect, no, no, no. But better than any of the other isms and better than the inevitable strongmen like Chavez.

Thanks again. We should ride some time.

you wrote:

Thanks again. We should ride some time

a nice way to end a letter. that would be tight. we generally ride during the week at lunch in dc (hains point) and on the weekends in md and va. once the weather becomes a bit more civilized, drop me a line [anything@racingunion.org] and we'll hook up. i'll even scrape up some discretionary rubles from the team account and treat to coffee or beer.
best,
sg

Will do. Definitemente.

And thanks for not flogging me on Iraq as colonialism, which it arguably is, and which was the glaring weak link in my pro-Western democracy argument (if we can come up with a good excuse, we do invade other countries that piss us off, which is not so great).

I am off to ride the trainer!