So, about that "Stalin killed 20 million people" claim....

Awhile back I had the idea to write a book on the 1953 Soviet coup, due to the lack of quality English language pieces on it. To get an understanding, I've picked up a lot of source material, books some of which date to the eve of WWI, to piece together how it came to be. Now, something I noticed was that before the late 60's, the claims of mass murders under the rule of Stalin simply did not exist outside of a handful of conspiracy theorists and Nazi propaganda.

Going through the material, it was clear that the claim of death totals came from one source, "The Great Terror" by Robert Conquest. So, it went on my reading list. Now, he released a few editions of the book, so I worked hard and dug out a First Edition, the original claim source, and sat down to read. 

By the time I was finished, it was clear that there was a major problem with the claim. Instead of any facts, what Conquest had was a number, and be then worked backwards to explain the number. That number, 20 million, came from a series of CIA reports. Most of those reports remain classified, but other reports which reference the data within them are not. As a result, I could pull up and find out at least where the CIA had gotten the numbers for the claim.

It turned out that the numbers came not from a study of prison populations, or death totals, but from studies on Soviet abortion laws. Starting in 1920, the Soviet Union had open and available abortion access, under Section 140 of their penal code. According to these CIA reports, it appears that from 1920 until the death of Stalin in 1953, the Soviet Union had just over 5 million abortions.

What we can find now in a 1968 CIA paper titled "Soviet Concern over falling Birth Rate" is a reference to extrapolated population loss from these abortions. The total loss figures given in this report, which came out around the same time as Conquest's book, was roughly 20 million, from those aborted fetuses not growing up to have children of their own.

Conquest then took this 20 million figure out of context, and tried to tally out a source for this loss. At no point in his analysis was the abortion rate listed. It is unknown if he was handed this data out of context, or intentionally left this context off. 

We can find elsewhere in The Great Terror other oddities of his numbers. For example, in discussing the population of the Ukraine, he cited the Ukraine's population in the 1926 census, but then used the population of the Ukrainian ethnic group from the 1939 census, failing to note the actual population of the Ukraine at all. As such, by first using the whole territories population and then only using a select subgroup of it to compare against, it creates a false impression of population loss. 

Instead, using the same number for both, we find that the Ukraine grew in population during that period. By doing this, despite these numbers being clearly noted in both census reports, Conquest creates the desired narrative. This leads us to believe that the omission of the source for the "20 million" claim was intentional, and not accidental.

The entire book is riddled with such errors, yet it is the origin of so many claims on this era. As such, it makes it very difficult to engage in honest research on the Soviet Union. Any claim needs to be double checked due to the amount and volume of misleading information.

The Soviet Union collapsed over 20 years ago. Its records have since been opened up. Analyzing those numbers shows a far different story than what Conquest presented. Instead of tens of millions dead through a prison system, we find that the death total was an order of magnitude less, more in line with other nations of the era, which is to say still far higher than we would accept today. 

According to the official documents from the Soviet Union as found in Rosefielde's "An assessment of the Sources and Uses of Gulag Forced Labor 1926-1956", the peak prison population stood at 1.7 million, in 1952. The peak for prison deaths stood at roughly 300,000 in 1942, mostly caused by the Nazi invasion of the USSR. Eliminating the war period, the highest reported death total for a year is 98,000 people. Hardly the tens of millions claimed by Conquest.

However, tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands dead do not sell books in the post-Holocaust era.  We find numerous examples attempting to exaggerate the number found under Stalin, which feeds into this preconception. When the numbers do not add up, or when a report is discovered to have been based not on prison deaths but on the abortion rate impact on the workforce, it becomes difficult to even dare broach this topic. I do not dare publish this for my job, despite it being newsworthy, because it would label us in a negative light.

It is tragic that there are subjects which are above reproach. We have historians releasing books which are nothing short of holocaust denial and being praised in the media. But if someone dares point out that a claim against Stalin was taken out of context, and as a result is incredibly misleading, they become the subject of attacks by otherwise rational people.

I cannot claim to know the "truth" here. What I do know is that this one book presented a number which was grossly misleading, one presented as killed as part of a prison system when in fact it was population loss from a poorly orchestrated family planning system. These kinds of errors make researching very difficult, and in turn makes it much harder for me to work on new topics for the future.

On the Holodomor Famine

Spent close to an hour discussing the holodomor famine this morning. I have never seen someone so eager to demonize Stalin that they let even basic facts rile them up.

Although things I learned in studying it included:

• A multi-year drought began in 1927, which lasted for the next decade.
• The agricultural system was based on the US's monoculture approach, which left the soil in poor shape. In the US this led to the dust bowl and our own famine in the 1930's.
• The pushback against agricultural reforms resulted in farmers killing off their livestock and damaging farm equipment, resulting in a severe disruption in food production in the Ukraine. Many large farm operators were arrested, resulting in key knowledge not being in place at this time for land management, which was already poor to begin with.
• The quotas for export were adjusted very slowly to reflect these conditions. These were set by bureaucrats not on the ground, who were likely unaware of the conditions, or simply did not believe the reports. This is only human nature to disbelieve when something so dramatic happens. 
• Contrary to the export quotas, the quotas for internal consumption were adjusted with incredible speed. This shows a disconnect existed between the two offices.

If we went by the argument from the other side, Stalin engineered the whole thing in order to exterminate the people within the Ukraine. If this were the case, the persons argument would have effectively given Stalin near-godhood level of power and influence. Even the Nazi's could not have orchestrated such an event, the death of millions without firing a single shot.

Instead, I see a series of coincidental events, which in turn caused the famine to intensify. It must be noted that the Holodomor family was less severe than the famine found in the US during the same time period.

However, I also see the after-effects as well. Once the agricultural reforms were in place, and soil management addressed, the land began to produce again. While the US had its famine stretch out over half a decade, the Soviet famine ended in under 18 months. A remarkable thing, honestly. The deaths could likely have been prevented, but hindsight is always 20/20. At the time, the solutions needed were not obvious. To blame any single person for it is just ridiculous.

Indeed, once the issue was clear, as demonstrated by the cuts on the export quotas in both 1932 and 1933, the Soviet system changed gears with remarkable alacrity. The USSR shifted food from non-affected regions to the Ukraine and by the end of 1933, even though the drought would continue for several more years, the famine was effectively over.

It can be argued that the cuts to exports needed to happen sooner, or deeper. It can also be argued that the rapid implementation of farm collectives aggravated the issue by inciting large landowners to commit such widespread destruction of livestock and apparatus. But these are ideas given to us in hindsight. We have to keep perspective of the time and era in which this happened. 

A lot of experimentation, some good, some bad, was happening all across the Soviet Union. Based on the famine which struck the midwest of the United States at generally the same time, it is highly doubtful that it could have been avoided entirely. But, who knows?

Sources of study for this piece:

Encyclopedia of GENOCIDE and CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY by MacMillan USA
Holodomor, Famine in Ukraine 1932-1933: A Crime against Humanity or Genocide? by Renate Stark
the findings of the 2008 meeting in Kyiv marking the 75th Anniversary of Holodomor
THE HOLODOMOR OF 1932-1933: THE SCHOLARLY VERDICT By Stanislav Kulchytsky 
The 1932–1933 Crisis and Its Aftermath beyond the Epicenters of Famine: The Urals Region by Gijs Kessler 
An Analysis of the Main Causes of the Holodomor by Yiwei Cheng
Dust Bowl Era by R. Louis Baumhardt
The Dust Bowl by Ken Burns

A new direction

I've not touched this site for a few years, having been recruited for my article work to write for Addicting Info.

Now, someone brought up the idea of creating a bibliography of right-wing distortions against communist nations. This intrigued me, as in my writing for AI I had found a significant amount of what I had accepted about the former communist or third world nations either a result of spin, or just fabrication.

So, now welcome to the new Intelligent Leftist, a blog designed to break down and sort fact from fiction in regards to the history and reality of the opposing side of the cold war. A historical analysis, and the best understanding I can achieve with the information given.

It may not be popular, but it is necessary. And if nobody else will do it. I will.

On Superman

Many people are complaining about the recent events in the Superman storyline. For those who are unaware, in the comics Superman personally intervened in Iran, the Iranian government assumed he was acting not as Superman, man of Steel, but Superman, agent of the US Government, and responded accordingly to what they viewed as a declaration of war. In response to this, Superman does the only course of action he, in his position, can take. So long as he is there as a symbol of the American way, there are those who would use him in order to harm his homeland, the people he loves. Due to his immense stature and capability, he could not be that symbol, that it is foolish for him to pretend that his actions would not reflect on his home and those he love.

In order to enable him to protect the home he loves, he has to walk away from it, renouncing his citizenship.

I have heard more people complain, equating it to GI Joe pissing on the Army uniform in one post I saw. Instead, I salute it. DC Comics is addressing a real issue in the world through their comic metaphor, and that narrow minded people don't get it and think that him doing this was unAmerican or an attempt to make being American shameful.

Superman did what he had to do, in order to be a proud American. Due to his status, he became a symbol of America to the world in the DC universe, and in this Universe too I may add. But he also saw how dangerous it had become, that people were looking to him to be America, to lead America and to set it's policies, to personify it's policies. In order to protect America from Kal El, the man, he had to divorce Superman from the country itself.

If such a being as Superman existed in this world, much the same would happen. Imagine in a Watchmen world what would happen, the fallout if Dr Manhattan did as Superman did. Iran would immediatel­y declare war on the US and attack our troops in Iraq and Afghanista­n out of the assumption that if Superman was against them, the US was against them.

This makes Superman in my eye not less American, but more American. This is what being American means, putting the good of your friends, family, neighbors ahead of your own. This is the country of We the People. He is now, more than ever, the symbol of everything that is right about America, what is worth fighting for in America.

On Taxes and the lack thereof

Adrian Hunter commented this on this facebook post: http://www.facebook.com/bsnowden2/posts/182435675138204?notif_t=share_reply

A major complaint is so many don’t pay any Income Tax. The uninformed think that means low income people. But here is reality - due to the gwb gift to the wealthy, for 2011 a couple could have had $86,700 of dividends (at the S&P average dividend rate that is over $5million in stock) and their income tax would be ZERO.

To compare - if that married couple's $86,700 income was wages, their 2010 federal income tax would be $9,369 (no kids, standard deduction)- and they would have paid another $6,633 in social security & medicare taxes.

So on the same amount of income - the couple with $5million of stock pays ZERO, while the working couple pays $16,002.

The above is from an accountant friend of mine.

===================================================

So, I went to look this up.

When in doubt about taxes, don't go to the so called think tanks, who often times are financed by groups with personal involvement. As everyone pays taxes, every think tank is financed by someone with a personal involvement.

So who do you go to? One source: http://www.irs.gov

The Internal Revenue Service website is not the cleanest, but it has everything you'd ever need to or want to know about our tax code on there. It is their job, after all. The relevant document this time is: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p550.pdf

It looks more daunting than it truly is. If you break it down, Adrian's accounting friend is 100% correct. A person with $5 Million in stock holdings can live tax free. And, with other accounting processes, can even hold more, through things such as dividend reinvestment.

This seems a tad unfair, especially when we are discussing budget cuts which would harm our economic system itself. Why should I work my tail off to let someone sit on their butt and collect checks for not working?

A Liberal Definition by John F. Kennedy

Taken from: http://www.liberalparty.org/JFKLPAcceptance.html

A small reminder of what Liberal means, from John Kennedy.

Acceptance Speech of the New York
Liberal Party Nomination

September 14, 1960

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."

But first, I would like to say what I understand the word "Liberal" to mean and explain in the process why I consider myself to be a "Liberal," and what it means in the presidential election of 1960.

In short, having set forth my view -- I hope for all time -- two nights ago in Houston, on the proper relationship between church and state, I want to take the opportunity to set forth my views on the proper relationship between the state and the citizen. This is my political credo:

I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, in the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. It is, I believe, the faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith. For liberalism is not so much a party creed or set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves.

I believe also in the United States of America, in the promise that it contains and has contained throughout our history of producing a society so abundant and creative and so free and responsible that it cannot only fulfill the aspirations of its citizens, but serve equally well as a beacon for all mankind. I do not believe in a superstate. I see no magic in tax dollars which are sent to Washington and then returned. I abhor the waste and incompetence of large-scale federal bureaucracies in this administration as well as in others. I do not favor state compulsion when voluntary individual effort can do the job and do it well. But I believe in a government which acts, which exercises its full powers and full responsibilities. Government is an art and a precious obligation; and when it has a job to do, I believe it should do it. And this requires not only great ends but that we propose concrete means of achieving them.

Our responsibility is not discharged by announcement of virtuous ends. Our responsibility is to achieve these objectives with social invention, with political skill, and executive vigor. I believe for these reasons that liberalism is our best and only hope in the world today. For the liberal society is a free society, and it is at the same time and for that reason a strong society. Its strength is drawn from the will of free people committed to great ends and peacefully striving to meet them. Only liberalism, in short, can repair our national power, restore our national purpose, and liberate our national energies. And the only basic issue in the 1960 campaign is whether our government will fall in a conservative rut and die there, or whether we will move ahead in the liberal spirit of daring, of breaking new ground, of doing in our generation what Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and Adlai Stevenson did in their time of influence and responsibility.

Our liberalism has its roots in our diverse origins. Most of us are descended from that segment of the American population which was once called an immigrant minority. Today, along with our children and grandchildren, we do not feel minor. We feel proud of our origins and we are not second to any group in our sense of national purpose. For many years New York represented the new frontier to all those who came from the ends of the earth to find new opportunity and new freedom, generations of men and women who fled from the despotism of the czars, the horrors of the Nazis, the tyranny of hunger, who came here to the new frontier in the State of New York. These men and women, a living cross section of American history, indeed, a cross section of the entire world's history of pain and hope, made of this city not only a new world of opportunity, but a new world of the spirit as well.

Tonight we salute Governor and Senator Herbert Lehman as a symbol of that spirit, and as a reminder that the fight for full constitutional rights for all Americans is a fight that must be carried on in 1961.

Many of these same immigrant families produced the pioneers and builders of the American labor movement. They are the men who sweated in our shops, who struggled to create a union, and who were driven by longing for education for their children and for the children's development. They went to night schools; they built their own future, their union's future, and their country's future, brick by brick, block by block, neighborhood by neighborhood, and now in their children's time, suburb by suburb.

Tonight we salute George Meany as a symbol of that struggle and as a reminder that the fight to eliminate poverty and human exploitation is a fight that goes on in our day. But in 1960 the cause of liberalism cannot content itself with carrying on the fight for human justice and economic liberalism here at home. For here and around the world the fear of war hangs over us every morning and every night. It lies, expressed or silent, in the minds of every American. We cannot banish it by repeating that we are economically first or that we are militarily first, for saying so doesn't make it so. More will be needed than goodwill missions or talking back to Soviet politicians or increasing the tempo of the arms race. More will be needed than good intentions, for we know where that paving leads.

In Winston Churchill's words, "We cannot escape our dangers by recoiling from them. We dare not pretend such dangers do not exist."

And tonight we salute Adlai Stevenson as an eloquent spokesman for the effort to achieve an intelligent foreign policy. Our opponents would like the people to believe that in a time of danger it would be hazardous to change the administration that has brought us to this time of danger. I think it would be hazardous not to change. I think it would be hazardous to continue four more years of stagnation and indifference here at home and abroad, of starving the underpinnings of our national power, including not only our defense but our image abroad as a friend.

This is an important election -- in many ways as important as any this century -- and I think that the Democratic Party and the Liberal Party here in New York, and those who believe in progress all over the United States, should be associated with us in this great effort. The reason that Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and Adlai Stevenson had influence abroad, and the United States in their time had it, was because they moved this country here at home, because they stood for something here in the United States, for expanding the benefits of our society to our own people, and the people around the world looked to us as a symbol of hope.

I think it is our task to re-create the same atmosphere in our own time. Our national elections have often proved to be the turning point in the course of our country. I am proposing that 1960 be another turning point in the history of the great Republic.

Some pundits are saying it's 1928 all over again. I say it's 1932 all over again. I say this is the great opportunity that we will have in our time to move our people and this country and the people of the free world beyond the new frontiers of the 1960s.

Taxes, Income, and GDP

In many cases, I hear people discussing our taxes as if they are too high, and that our government is too large. But when I study, our taxes are actually some of the lowest in the world, and our government is anemic, too small to function with the population we have. For instance, our "Business income tax rate" is 35%, which yes, is higher. But that is only *part* of the taxes a business has to deal with. Add in the Tariffs, the VAT, sales taxes, etc, the US lacks those for businesses, so they pay the same 35% rate, but other countries do have those, with the taxes for many companies over 50% in many countries. But why do our companies flee there? Because they don't tax foreign owned companies. But we don't tax foreign earned income. So companies become a shell game, hiding their income, to avoid taxes.

The truth is, our debt and deficit is an issue of the fact that our tax policy has become distorted. We bought a lie, that we could have our cake and eat it too. That we could have the government we needed without paying for it. Our society is too large to operate without a tax base equal to it. But we as of right now have a tax base lower than any point since 1950.

I'm not talking income taxes, mind you, but all government income. We have nothing to cut, even if we eliminated all discressionary spending, we'd still be in debt and we'd crush our GDP in the process, hurting our tax base even more. Our rush to privatize has deprived the system of the income it needs to operate. We socialize risk, but privatize profits, and wonder why we have no money for the programs needed to keep our highways open, to prevent our schools from degrading into morasses of mediocraty, and that our ability to borrow determines our value to society.

Our GDP per capita, adjusted for inflation, if we'd kept pace with the growth of the 1950's, would be at over $90k. Instead, it's at $58k. The entire slowdown has happened since the 1970's. Until we can honestly say that the median income in the US is at $90k, we're all suffering.

As for hiding income, we need to simply apply the same rules to corporations which apply to everyone else, if you send money overseas, you get taxed on it as if it were profit or earned income, at the highest rate without any options for deductions. Then we need Tariffs, not high tariffs, but a small bump to slow things down. Lastly, we need to fix the capital gains system, it is broken beyond all means, with huge profits gaining no taxes at all despite being a huge drain of government resources.

Until we address the real issue, that our consumer driven economy is being dismantled through a poor tax program, we will never get back on our feet.