Re: Massive Starvation For World Feared Over Myanmar And Chile

On Sat, 10 May 2008, Daniele Futtorovic wrote:


>>>> Does this have anything to do with your advocacy of mass murder in 
>>>> another thread?
>>>> 
>>>> -jh-
>>> 
>>> No.
>>> 
>>> -- DF.
>>> 
>> I certainly did write this. If your advocacy of mass murder of
"settlers" 
>> in another thread was intended as a "joke," it was in the
>>  worst possible taste, and was reminiscent of similar "jokes" that have

>> been imputed to Stalin by his enemies such as Khrushchev.
>
> Surreptitious, my dear Watson.
>
> Firstly, what I wrote as to "mass-murder" of "settlers" can hardly be
> called advocacy thereof. I introduced it with a comment, I quote:
> "since we already are in the business of telling other people what they
> ought to do with their country, anyway".
> This comment was meant to be ironical and should be understandable
> against the background of what Vngelis' wrote. He appeared to been keen
> on imposing expelling of those "settlers", to which I answered that
> expelling them would be even worse than shooting them for the interests
> of the Bolivian people.

Vangelis has repeatedly called for the expulsion of anyone who he 
deems to be a "settler" from their country of birth, although he 
sometimes says that they can stay if they sup****t the Revolution.

You go him one better, and prefer the idea of mass murder. Your only 
defense is your implication below that perhaps you do not quite agree 
with him as to who should be designated a "settler," and who not. 
Irony? Your claim to be merely ironical is contradicted by the rest of 
this posting.

> greater depth by David --, the issue of what's a "settler" and what's
> not is an entire problem for itself, making the proposed "solution", the
> "mass-murder" even more hypothetical and, at least as I meant it,
ironical.
> I clearly didn't _advocate_ it. I made it entirely clear what
> solution I advocated, and if you didn't see it I suggest you read the
> post again.

So you think that mass murder is OK morally, but not a wise tactical 
choice.

This is indeed reminiscent of Stalin's alleged remark, according to 
Khrushchev, that "not even I could kill thirty million Ukrainians." 
However perhaps in Stalin's case there was a smidgin of moral doubt 
involved, even in the unlikely case that Khrushchev quoted him 
accurately.

> I must point out, though, that on the other hand I do not at all share
> the sentiment of horror and pacifist tremor which transpires from your
> last two posts. I certainly wouldn't mind if the Bolivian latifundia
> owners where shot as a whole -- firstly because it's not my country and
> I therefore have no business in telling them what to do, and secondly
> because I have little sympathy to spare for aristocrats.

The least one can say about this is that it is against the most 
elementary principles of Marxism. Members of a class do not labor 
under a collective guilt due to their particular relation****p to the 
mode of production. It is the system, not the individuals, which is to 
blame.

Moreover clearly Vangelis was not talking merely about latifundia 
owners, but about anyone in Bolivia with no Indian blood in their 
veins. And you made no effort whatsoever to distinguish yourself from 
him in this matter in the posting you refer to.

>
> Secondly and much more im****tant is your bringing this subject into this
> thread in the first place. Here's the one-hundred dollar question:
> where, my dear Watson, did I, in this thread, speak of murder or
> homicide? Hmm? You imply I did and that's clearly malevolent. You're
> implicitly equating birth-control with murder, and you don't even have
> the guts to state it openly, unlike the religious s***, which I suggest
> you turn to for a new group of friends and like-minded people. Unless
> that was a mistake or misunderstanding on your behalf, in which case I
> suggest you correct it.

Nonsense. I sup****t birth control and abortion. For that matter I 
happen to agree that the world population is too large, and that a 
socialist world government would seek to encourage population 
reduction, although hopefully not as bureaucratically as the Chinese 
government does.

My question was asked for one reason and one reason only--because I 
wanted to know the answer. If you had answered "yes" you would at any 
rate have been displaying logical consistency, something absent from 
this posting.

-jh-

>
> As to what you write about "'jokes' imputed to Stalin": I don't give a
> crap. My views on Stalin are the same as Trotsky's and I consequently
> couldn't care less about his good name -- or about Khrushchev's, for
> that matter.
>
> -- 
> DF.
>