- The American Conservative - http://www.theamericanconservative.com -

The Left’s Love Affair With the Bolshevik Revolution

Exactly a century ago, the Bolsheviks came to power in Russia and began a reign of terror unprecedented in human history. What is the place of the Soviet Revolution and the communist ideology that inspired it in the American cultural imagination in 2017?

American Reds, a 2016 documentary film about the American Communist Party (CPUSA) and its relationship to the Russian Revolution, offers a poignant example of the way in which the American left’s vision of the Bolsheviks and their revolution has been lightly repackaged while remaining true to the roots of classic communist romanticism and deception. The film’s website claims it eschews both demonization and sentimentality, offering a balanced account of the events, but the discerning viewer cannot miss the myriad ways in which this work of cinematic ‘non-fiction’ tells the same factually challenged, emotionally hyperbolic story of another film, of a generation earlier with a similar title: Warren Beatty’s Reds (1980).

Beatty’s story is a self-conscious romance, the tale of the relationship of radical writers John Reed and Louise Bryant, with the Bolshevik Revolution as its canvas. The feminist Bryant’s commitment to the communist utopian ideal seems driven entirely by the magnetic repulsion of her hatred of conventional religious views on marital fidelity and gender roles. But Beatty’s Reed is an evangelical convert and street corner preacher of communism, with all the brutal passion and readiness to contemptuously dismiss any evidence contrary to the faith that this entails. In a stunning discussion between Reed and Emma Goldman, in which the latter expresses concern that the Revolution is starving, massacring, and jailing many of its citizens, Reed offers a naked, blanket apology for atrocity in the name of utopianism: “Did you expect social transformation to be anything other than a murderous process? It’s a war. We gotta fight it like we fight a war, with discipline, with terror, with firing squads.” Goldman has no response.

The Revolution is true, in Beatty’s vision, in the way that a love affair is true, far beyond rigorous analysis of the possible, the consequences, and the costs. The scenes in which Reed and Bryant dance and play in the Russian snow as the Bolsheviks take power, in which they and other revolutionaries enter the Winter Palace as polite concert-goers might enter the hall, in which we are treated to cuts from a deified Lenin exhorting the crowd to roars of approval, and then to Bryant and Reed beatifically kissing, all this would be laughable if only one could manage to forget the monstrous realities of those early days of the Revolution.

One could say Beatty’s excuse was the dearth of evidence of the extent of Bolshevik crimes before the Russian archives had opened to the outside world. But Richard Wormser, the filmmaker responsible for the love letter to the CPUSA that is American Reds, has no such explanation for these omnipresent absences in his film. Wormser uses one of the same key narrative techniques Beatty employed, i.e., an ongoing commentary from a host of eyewitnesses, typically in the form of wistful nostalgia and an unrepentant refusal to acknowledge the failings of the belief system that drove their lives. In Reds, they sing “The Internationale,” and talk in bright-eyed naiveté of the Revolution’s poetry.

In American Reds, the stories are similarly aesthetically polished, brimming with passionate if vacuous declamations, and ultimately indicative of the same deep level of self-deception and moral nihilism. One of American Reds’ claims is that American communists were important players in the movement to win and assure the civil rights of minorities.  Party members tell us that their inspiration was the Soviet Union’s attitude on the rights of minorities, and the film weaves a heartwarming tale of the USSR welcoming American blacks who fled the U.S. to escape the racist corruption of capitalist social order. But even with the advantage of historical hindsight, those interviewed in the film still believe the mere fact that the Soviets embraced the propaganda value of parading around expatriate American blacks constituted evidence that they had eliminated prejudice in their own country. Can they, or Wormser, be unaware of the Soviet population transfers of ethnic Poles, Hungarians, Germans, Ukrainians, Crimean Tatars, and Chechens that resulted in millions of deaths by disease and starvation? Have they managed to believe the incredible idea that the post-Civil War caste system in the American South was worse than this systematic deportation and extermination of millions of ethnic Others by the Bolsheviks?

The most incriminating of the film’s deceptions has to do with the role of CPUSA members in Soviet-directed espionage. When Reds was made, the Venona project, a 40-year American counterintelligence effort to gather encrypted communications between Soviet intelligence forces and their American spies, was still unknown to the public. There is now an extensive literature demonstrating just how expansive and destructive this infiltration was. Yet American Reds contents itself with the tired myth of a paranoid America hysterically denouncing an invented communist menace. One sequence alludes ominously to the anti-communist propaganda of Mickey Spillane’s Mike Hammer novels, suggesting it legitimated violent animus toward peaceful leftists. The truth is there were hundreds of CPUSA members actively engaged in Soviet spying inside the federal government and among the ranks of scientists involved in military research. They helped the Soviet Union acquire atomic bomb technology years before they otherwise would have been expected to, and this tactical fact girded the Soviets for a military showdown in Korea that cost some 37,000 American lives. These appalling costs of communist infiltration are entirely absent in American Reds’ romantic tale of heroic, righteous radicals.

For a more accurate account of the human consequences of the Bolshevik Revolution and its aftermath, we might well turn to a third film, earlier than either of these, dramatized from the account of a Soviet dissident who saw communism in practice up close. Though it has been criticized for superficially depicting the historical landscape within which the love story at its core took place, Doctor Zhivago nonetheless tells profound truths about these events omitted in Reds and American Reds.

Among the film’s characters is Pasha Antipov, an idealistic radical who is converted by the Revolution’s victory into the merciless apparatchik Strelnikov. In one of the film’s signature moments, he addresses the poet-physician Yuri: “I used to admire your poetry…Feelings inside, affections, it’s suddenly trivial now. You don’t agree. You’re wrong. The personal life is dead in Russia. History has killed it…The private life is dead for a man with any manhood.” Yuri responds that he has witnessed Strelnikov’s manhood on display in the wake of the Bolshevik massacre of a nearby village. Strelnikov’s answer to this charge is terrifying: “What does it matter? The village betrays us, the village is burned. The point is made.” Yuri replies: “Your point; their village.”

This is a painfully simple truth about the impossibility of justification of Bolshevik crimes, in poetic or any other terms, which makes it all the more astounding that efforts such as Reds and now American Reds work so hard not to see it.

Alexander Riley is the author of Angel Patriots: The Crash of United Flight 93 and the Myth of America [1].

25 Comments (Open | Close)

25 Comments To "The Left’s Love Affair With the Bolshevik Revolution"

#1 Comment By GreenOaks1234 On August 9, 2017 @ 11:35 pm

This isn’t “the left” and its love affair; it’s one filmmaker.

Failure to appreciate the crimes of 20th century communism is hardly one of the top 200 problems facing the country’s political system today.

E.g. look at the recent NY Times series on the 100th anniversary of the Russian Revolution.

#2 Comment By cka2nd On August 10, 2017 @ 12:42 am

“Reed offers a naked, blanket apology for atrocity in the name of utopianism: ‘Did you expect social transformation to be anything other than a murderous process? It’s a war. We gotta fight it like we fight a war, with discipline, with terror, with firing squads.'”

Were the English, American and French revolutions and civil wars not wars? Often enough involving outside parties, like the French and Russian civil wars. The social transformation represented by the ending of Jim Crow was hardly completely peaceful and non-violent, nor was that of granting women the vote in Great Britain, and decolonization – including that of India – often required military action to happen. The fact is that Russia was in the midst of a brutal civil war, and civil wars are generally the most murderous you can find.

“if only one could manage to forget the monstrous realities of those early days of the Revolution.”

Like releasing Czarist officers and liberal politicians who later went on to found some of the White Armies and fight a three-year civil war, which saw a lot more “monstrous reality” than October 1917 ever did.

“Can they, or Wormser, be unaware of the Soviet population transfers of ethnic Poles, Hungarians, Germans, Ukrainians, Crimean Tatars, and Chechens that resulted in millions of deaths by disease and starvation?”

The deportation of the kulak class began in 1930 and that of ethnic populations began in 1935. In other words, mass deportations began after Joseph Stalin had taken control of the Communist Party, the Comintern and the state. The deportations were denounced by Nikita Khrushchev in 1956, although a couple of smaller populations were forcibly transferred from mountainous regions to plains and plain desert regions in 1959 and the 1970’s. American loyalists to the British crown were stripped of their property and deported, by the way.

“The truth is there were hundreds of CPUSA members actively engaged in Soviet spying inside the federal government and among the ranks of scientists involved in military research. They helped the Soviet Union acquire atomic bomb technology years before they otherwise would have been expected to”

And thank the gods for those spies, because millions of human beings would have likely died if the US was free to throw its nukes around. Just look at how disastrous it has been for humanity to have a single superpower free to bomb, invade and destroy countries at will since the break-up of the USSR.

“One of American Reds’ claims is that American communists were important players in the movement to win and assure the civil rights of minorities.”

And do you deny that American communists took part in the civil rights movement? That members of the Communist Party and other Marxist parties did not participate in defending the homes of black families moving into white neighborhoods or protest against discrimination and Jim Crow apartheid?

“Among the film’s characters is Pasha Antipov, an idealistic radical who is converted by the Revolution’s victory into the merciless apparatchik Strelnikov. In one of the film’s signature moments, he addresses the poet-physician Yuri: “I used to admire your poetry…Feelings inside, affections, it’s suddenly trivial now. You don’t agree. You’re wrong. The personal life is dead in Russia. History has killed it…The private life is dead for a man with any manhood.” Yuri responds that he has witnessed Strelnikov’s manhood on display in the wake of the Bolshevik massacre of a nearby village. Strelnikov’s answer to this charge is terrifying: “What does it matter? The village betrays us, the village is burned. The point is made.” Yuri replies: “Your point; their village.”

As appalling as Antipov’s philosophical musings are, again, what would you expect in a war or civil war? Do you think that the executions of traitors, or the decimations of civilian populations after guerrilla attacks, are unique to the Bolsheviks or revolutionaries? Do you think that violent death is not something that peasants and the urban lower classes were immune from before the Age of Revolution?

Reformist socialists, anarchists and revolutionary Marxists have been debating and criticizing the October Revolution since it happened, and the most lucid and logical of the arguments made for and against the Revolution have generally come from the revolutionary Marxist side of the table, although I do highly recommend the novel, “We,” by Yevgeny Zamyatin for a brilliant attack on the revolution from the right.

#3 Comment By NoahK On August 10, 2017 @ 4:00 am

If I can put in my two cents as a socialist (even if one on the libertarian/anarchist end of the scale), and I think a lot of us feel this way: The Russian Revolution was one of the greatest political achievements of the 20th Century, and is something to be celebrated, but the Soviet Union, after that, was the most crushing disappointment for the Left, and for the world.

I do think there is nostalgia for a time when the Left was on the ascent, and it meant something positive to a lot of people to be a socialist or communist. That does mean that Soviet atrocities can be ignored, though certainly not excused (generally). Is it any surprise that when the (economic) Right is dominant in the West, and the brutalities of modern capitalism are becoming more and more evident, the Left would be sentimental for a society, and a worldwide movement wasn’t that way (even if it was tragically, horrifically flawed)?

#4 Comment By Spanish to English On August 10, 2017 @ 4:52 am

Beatty’s story is a self-conscious romance

#5 Comment By Aaron Hunsley On August 10, 2017 @ 5:52 am

The line is “A village betrays us. A village is burned.” Not “the”. In other words, Strelnikov doesn’t actually care if he burned the right village. It’s just a demonstration of terror.

#6 Comment By BCZ On August 10, 2017 @ 6:18 am

Man. We really view ‘Reds’ differently. Like. A lot. I don’t think you view it as the American left does, either. You may want to ask some thoughtful liberal about their viewing of Reds. It is kind of difficult for any truly radical leftist to watch Reds and see it as an attempt at justification or in any way other than a tragedy. I know.. I was one of those young radical leftists who saw Reds.

#7 Comment By Articuno On August 10, 2017 @ 6:54 am

“If communism is liberalism in a hurry, then liberalism is communism in slow motion”

#8 Comment By EliteCommInc. On August 10, 2017 @ 7:10 am

This is what I think has been going on since the seventies. A slow steady purge of anything based on traditional norms or standards.

And bundling anything and everything as some manner of civil violation, hence rendering civility itself meaningless in the struggle. There are times when incivility may be appropriate, but it certainly would not include how another voted in an election, or who won an election in a process fair and open. That being offended alone constitutes cause for civil rights violation by the supposed offender.

Agree with us or you will be purged not only socially, but to livelihood. And no profession appears safe.

My one hesitation in this article deals with the comparison of how our country has treated blacks in lieu of the communist revolution’s purge’s. I have to consider the promise of the US juxtaposed against a population already purged by be being barred near wholesale.

Note: Given that Paul Robeson was pulled from a train in Russia by the population – I would not call that mere propaganda. Though, certainly it was used as such.

And there is no doubt that the Soviets effectively managed to employ so many spies that on occasion the spies ran into other by accident.
I remain unclear how the staple of purging to the slaughter of millions goes referenced by socialists or communists in the US.

#9 Comment By Diana On August 10, 2017 @ 10:21 am

I’m liberal and I certainly don’t glorify the Russian Revolution.

#10 Comment By John Gruskos On August 10, 2017 @ 10:28 am

Warren Beatty made a career glorifying the worst human beings to ever inhabit America, including John Reed, Clyde Barrow and Bugsy Segal.

#11 Comment By Val On August 10, 2017 @ 11:55 am

Ironically, this article appears to mirror the whitewashing & downplaying of the “atrocities” rendered by communism. Indeed, the author fleetingly cites “millions” killed by communists but eerily stops short of citing the now undisputed “150 million” massacred by Lenin, Stalin and Mao’s (not to mention their disciples such as CAstro, N. Korea’s Kim Jong, et al) communist leaders.

(Tokenly?) the author noting the relatively minuscule “37,000 Americans killed” in the soviet-backed Korean conflict gives the impression that the mortal brutality of communist was closer to “thousands” rather than the historically unprecedented 150 million.

Care to tweak this article Mr. Riley to preserve its historical legacy?

#12 Comment By Fran Macadam On August 10, 2017 @ 12:15 pm

One could observe the panoply of history and cogently say that one atrocity follows another when the means of any of them are force and violence. That certainly includes all the bad means our own elites have decided upon that they think justified the good outcomes for themselves. At all times, and everywhere, such requires for public support heavy doses of the deceit of propaganda, which in retrospect becomes history.

#13 Comment By MM On August 10, 2017 @ 12:20 pm

Left is too broad, though the New Left of the 1960s, which today comprises a large chunk of the modern Left, was definitely pro-Lenin, as well as pro-Mao, pro-Castro, and for a time pro-Pot (Khmer Rouge).

The common thread being, anti-capitalism. And perhaps anti-consumerism. It’s a simple as that. No matter how murderous and Orwellian the government happens to be, as long as it at least says it’s anti-capitalist, it can’t be all bad. And by extension, no matter how generous the citizens of the U.S. happen to be, a capitalist country can never by very good.

Ironic, considering that Dmitri Volkogonov, famed Russian historian and general, in his biography of Lenin retorted that there was far more “socialism” in the capitalist West than there ever had been in the Soviet Union.

#14 Comment By Ron A. Hoffman On August 10, 2017 @ 12:59 pm

Unlike Boris Pasternak, the problem for John Reed and Louise Bryant is they did not live long enough to fully experience the terror and privations wrought by the Bolsheviks. In the book “Doctor Zhivago”, Pasternak writes:

“I think that collectivization was both a mistake and a failure, and because that couldn’t be admitted, every means of intimidation had to be used to make people forget how to think and judge for themselves, to force them to see what wasn’t there, and to maintain the contrary of what their eyes told them. Hence the unexampled harshness of the Yezhov* terror, and the promulgation of a constitution which was never intended to be applied, and the holding of elections not based on the principle of a free vote.”

*http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/display.asp?linkpath=pages%5CY%5CE%5CYezhovterror.htm

In the end, even Strelnikov, who fought for the Bolsheviks and was now on the run from them, comes to regret his part in the civil war that was born of the revolution. On the night before his suicide at Varykino, in giving testament to Zhivago of his regret for too long putting aside his own personal life, Strelnikov speaks of Lara his wife and Katya their daughter saying:

“Just think – six years of separation, six years of inhuman self-restraint. But I kept thinking that freedom was not yet wholly won. When I’d won it, I thought, my hands would be untied and I could belong to them. And now all my calculations have come to nothing. They’ll arrest me tomorrow. You are near and dear to her. Perhaps you’ll see her one day. . . But what am I saying! . . . I’m mad. They’ll arrest me, and they won’t let me say a word in my own defense. They’ll come at me with shouts and curses and gag me. Don’t I know how it’s done!”

#15 Comment By peterc On August 10, 2017 @ 4:31 pm

Revolution = “a forcible overthrow of a government or social order in favor of a new system.”
The more the old government or system tries to hang on to power, the more violence will be generated. The larger the country, the larger the number of victims. The more advanced the killing technology is, the larger the number of victims. Etc.
Most analyses of the Russian revolution are implicitly comparisons made with the American revolution and tend to overlook such elements. Their main objective is to vilify communism.
The most publicized communism is the Stalinist version, implemented in the USSR by Stalin, soon after Lenin died, or in China by Mao.
Much less publicized is the other version, which only lasted a couple of years until Stalin got full power – namely the late twenties. It was called NEP – New Economic Policy – and it was pretty successful.
In order to destroy the NEP, his political opponents, and to create his version of the system, Stalin used more and more force and created the Stalinist communism.
NEP was adopted by China after the death of Mao.
China is not a Western democracy but its NEP-like policy has provided – and still does – tremendous economic growth and prosperity.
In Yugoslavia, Tito tried something similar. Both are not democracies but neither are bloodthirsty systems.
Both are/were communist countries.
Lumping together under the label of communism what Stalin (or Mao) did and what today’s China is doing is disingenuous, or shows a lack of knowledge.

#16 Comment By John On August 10, 2017 @ 7:06 pm

Wow, Alex, thought you might have figured out the utter nonsense of this worn out argument. The Russian version of Hitler (that would be Stalin) comes to power in, of all places, Russia, and behaved just like the German version but with a Russian sense of gloom. Who could have seen that coming???
The important fact NOT brought up in your attempt to conflate liberalism (alt-left) with fascism (alt-right) lies at the core of the “cold war”. Ole’ Joe just wouldn’t let non-Russian corporate CEO’s weasel their way into removing all that oil and minerals from his back yard.
It is in the alt-right that ones finds adoration of authoritarianism. There just ain’t nothing that organized in the alt-left.
You do know American corporate CEO’s made a bunch of money helping Adolf build his sizeable killing machine. Right? Heck, the Nazi’s gave ole’ Henry Ford a big ole’ medal. Henry had pictures taken case we forgot! Were he and his buddies liberals?

#17 Comment By Allen On August 11, 2017 @ 12:17 pm

Modern socialism is to Marxism like real beer is to light beer. “Less killing! Tastes great!”

It always ends with the extermination of the undesirables. Or is it the deplorables?

#18 Comment By BadReligion On August 11, 2017 @ 4:01 pm

Val: That figure isn’t record-breaking when you look at it per capita.

Suppose we look for right-wing equivalents: The Taiping Rebellion (a century before Mao, about the same number died because one man thought he was Jesus’s younger brother, and millions believed him); the Armenian/Greek/Assyrian genocides; anti-Turkish ethnic cleansing via Balkan regimes, Armenian Militia, and Imperial Russia; almost every single Central and South American country at the hands of the US and some Europeans; the crimes of Imperial Japan (also before WWII, don’t forget); the European Wars of Religion; Suharto’s coup and reign; the Belgian Congo; the British Raj; the conquest of the US from its indigenous people; the Holocaust; the crimes of the Whites in the Russian Civil War; the Savimbi regime in Angola; Mobutu in Zaire; and many many many more.

Do you still want to claim there was some degree of evil unique to Communists?

#19 Comment By Joe Smith On August 11, 2017 @ 11:16 pm

“This isn’t “the left” and its love affair; it’s one filmmaker.

Failure to appreciate the crimes of 20th century communism is hardly one of the top 200 problems facing the country’s political system today.”

Except that beyond the fact that it took an awfully long time for the left to even grudgingly admit as much as they have, the bigger problem is that they still think that socialism/communism can work, when it has been manifestly proven that it doesn’t. Take the apologist below who blames the Soviet ethnic cleansings on Stalin. Folks, creating a system that is ripe for abuse and tyranny, and then hoping that only good people will run it, is a recipe for abuse and tyranny, and at this point, it’s happened so many times and become so obvious that I can no longer excuse people for having good intentions; they should know better by now.
Put differently, when flying the hammer & sickle, purchasing Soviet paraphernalia, and wearing non-disparaging Che shirts excites the same sort of disgust and scorn among leftists as flying the swastika, purchasing Nazi paraphernalia, and wearing non-disparaging Goebbels shirts would, then I’ll really believe that they’ve mended their ways. Not before.

#20 Comment By Dimitri Cavalli On August 12, 2017 @ 5:15 pm

Mr. Riley suggests that Beatty might be excused because the Russian state archives were still closed. If you read any non-Communist newspaper and magazine–many of which have been digitized and available through library databases and other paid Web sites–you’ll see they accurately reported on Soviet executions and persecutions, especially of religion. Despite the NY Times’ cover-up, the story of the starvation of the Ukraine was still reported in the Chicago Tribune and the Los Angeles Times (and authoritatively exposed by Brits Gareth Jones and Malcolm Muggeride.)

Another myth is that Khrushchev “revealed” Stalin’s crimes with his “Secret Speech.” All Khrushchev did was confirm what many non- and anti-Communists have claimed since the beginning. What Khrushchev did was finally remove the ability of Communists and Soviet fellow travelers to either rationalize or deny Soviet atrocities.

#21 Comment By cka2nd On August 13, 2017 @ 4:40 am

Val says: “…the now undisputed ‘150 million’ massacred by Lenin, Stalin and Mao’s (not to mention their disciples such as CAstro, N. Korea’s Kim Jong, et al) communist leaders.”

Undisputed? Even the Alt-Right’s Peter Heft has debunked R.J. Rummel’ work and “The Black Book of Communism,” while noting that the debate over counting famine deaths as deliberate or not – and you can’t get to those wild 100 million or 150 million counts without including deaths from famine – is still on-going.

[2]

#22 Comment By EliteCommInc. On August 13, 2017 @ 5:56 pm

Correction:

I remain unclear how the staple of purging to the slaughter of millions goes unreferenced by socialists or communists in the US.

#23 Comment By Dan Green On August 13, 2017 @ 8:29 pm

Dr. Zhivago was by far the best effort to find romance in our Russian pals history. I fell in love with Julie Christie as Lara.

#24 Comment By Jon On August 26, 2017 @ 4:25 pm

Perhaps this article represents a residual belief in a monolithic Communism which still looks to the former Soviet Union for inspiration. Not all of the left sighs in nostalgia for the October Putsch. When examining what is construed as the Left, one sees a spectrum of thought some of which coming from a different perspective coincides in part with societal critiques from the Right.

As some of the respondents here have pointed out, the Frankfurt School had long since remained independent of the so-called Party Line scathingly critiquing the failed Soviet experiment. Democratic Socialists including Sen. Sanders use that adjective, “democratic” as part of their label to differentiate themselves from the view which associate all of these trends as inseparable from one another. And there are left libertarians who are non-Marxist thereby remaining outside of its various historiographies.

At one time the October Putsch excited left wing radicals, but the honeymoon came crashing to an end shortly thereafter as they witnessed the beginning of its excesses. Among far left elements, a divisive discussion commenced with the rise of Stalin over what exactly happened to this radical social enterprise. Some faulted the person, others blamed it on a cult around Stalin, while others regarded it as a degenerate working class society and there were those who saw it as the emergence of State Capitalism. That debate among Marxists has yet to be resolved.

And of course how the left has viewed China, Vietnam, Laos, Romania, former Yugoslavia, Albania, Myanmar, and today, as well, Cuba, Venezuela, Ecuador, if I am not mistaken, and Bolivia also indicates divided opinions and a range of analysis.

#25 Comment By Wizard On September 12, 2017 @ 11:13 am

peterc – Are people still peddling that fairy tale? Is anybody still buying it? The one where the noble Lenin established a functional and humane state, only to have it usurped and perverted by the wicked Stalin? Because, seriously, that is a complete and utter crock.

The purges and the mass arrests and executions began almost immediately after Lenin seized power. Stalin merely continued and expanded policies of terror, he didn’t invent them. I suspect Lenin’s body-count might easily have rivaled Stalin’s, if he had lived long enough.

I certainly don’t consider the current Chinese government to be relevant to any discussion of communism, since they’ve long since ceased to be “communist” in anything but name. By allowing at least some semblance of a market economy, they have unleashed tremendous wealth creation. It’s just too bad that so much of that potential has been squandered on pointless, unproductive uses, but that’s inevitable whenever you try to centrally control something as vast and complex as a national economy. I’m happy for the millions of Chinese lifted out of poverty; this just demonstrates how powerful even a crippled and limited free market is.