↓
 
Home » Undoing the leftist deed

Undoing the leftist deed

The New Neo Posted on by

Gerard Vanderleun reminds us of how relevant Milan Kundera remains. Here’s the quote from my favorite work of Kundera’s, The Book of Laughter and Forgetting:

At a time when history still made its way slowly, the few events were easily remembered and woven into a backdrop, known to everyone, before which private life unfolded the gripping show of its adventures. Nowadays, time moves forward at a rapid pace. Forgotten overnight, a historic event glistens the next day like the morning dew and thus is no longer the backdrop to a narrator’s tale but rather an amazing adventure enacted against the background of the over-familiar banality of private life.

Since there is not a single historic event we can count on being commonly known, I must speak of events that took place a few years ago as if they were a thousand years old: In 1939, the German army entered Bohemia, and the Czech state ceased to exist. In 1945, the Russian army entered Bohemia, and the country once again was called an independent repub­lic. The people were enthusiastic about the Russia that had driven out the Germans, and seeing in the Czech Communist Party its faithful arm, they became sym­pathetic to it. So the Communists took power in February 1948 with neither bloodshed nor violence but greeted by the cheers of about half the nation.

And now, please note the half that did the cheering was the more dynamic, the more intelligent, the better.

Yes, say what you will, the Communists were more intelligent. They had an imposing program. A plan for an entirely new world where everyone would find a place. The opponents had no great dream, only some tiresome and threadbare moral principles, with which they tried to patch the torn trousers of the established order. So it’s no surprise that the enthusiasts, the spir­ited ones, easily won out over the halfhearted and the cautious, and rapidly set about to realize their dream, that idyll of justice for all. I emphasize idyll and for all, because all human beings have always aspired to an idyll, to that garden where nightingales sing, to that realm of harmony where the world does not rise up as a stranger against man and man against other men, but rather where the world and all men are shaped from one and the same matter.

There, everyone is a note in a sublime Bach fugue, and anyone who refuses to be one is a mere use­less and meaningless black dot that need only be caught and crushed between thumb and finger like a flea. There were people who immediately understood that they did not have the right temperament for the idyll and tried to go abroad. But since the idyll is in essence a world for all, those who tried to emigrate showed themselves to be deniers of the idyll, and instead of going abroad, they went behind bars. Thousands and tens of thousands of others soon joined them, including many Communists like the foreign minister, Clementis, who had lent his fur hat to Gottwald. Timid lovers held hands on the movie screens, adultery was harshly sup­pressed by citizens’ tribunals of honor, nightingales sang, and the body of Clements swung like a bell ring­ing in the new dawn of humanity.

And then those young, intelligent, and radical peo­ple suddenly had the strange feeling of having sent out into the world an act that had begun to lead a life of its own, had ceased to resemble the idea it was based on and did not care about those who had created it. Those young and intelligent people started to scold their act, they began to call to it, to rebuke it, to pur­sue it, to give chase to it.

It took over forty years and a lot of suffering before that deed was called back, and when it happened it was a group effort rather than solely the work of the Czech people.

Many years have passed since I first read Kundera’s book in 1980, when it was first published in English. At the time, I don’t think I paid much attention to the statement of his with which the second paragraph in the above quote begins: “Since there is not a single historic event we can count on being commonly known…” Now, however, it has tremendous force and resonance. Short attention spans and ignorance of history, as well as its misrepresentation by propagandists, are some of the great dangers we face today.

To me, though, the best example of Kundera’s ability to condense the destructive and inevitable paradox of idealistic leftism into a succinct and bitter phrase is this:

There, everyone is a note in a sublime Bach fugue, and anyone who refuses to be one is a mere use­less and meaningless black dot that need only be caught and crushed between thumb and finger like a flea.

The leftist progression from the dream of the sublime Bach fugue to the reality of the insect coldly crushed in the hand is one that history has informed us will be occurring. Some on the left know that and don’t care. But some are much like Kundera’s “young, intelligent, and radical peo­ple,” who – when it was too late – wished to “scold their act,…to rebuke it, to pur­sue it, to give chase to it.” Kundera himself was one of those people:

He belonged to the generation of young Czechs who had had little or no experience of the pre-war democratic Czechoslovak Republic. Their ideology was greatly influenced by the experiences of World War II and the German occupation. Still in his teens, he joined the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia which seized power in 1948…

Kundera, along with other reform communist writers such as Pavel Kohout, was partly involved in the 1968 Prague Spring…Kundera remained committed to reforming Czechoslovak communism, and argued vehemently in print with fellow Czech writer Václav Havel, saying, essentially, that everyone should remain calm and that “nobody is being locked up for his opinions yet,” and “the significance of the Prague Autumn may ultimately be greater than that of the Prague Spring.” Finally, however, Kundera relinquished his reformist dreams and moved to France in 1975.

[NOTE: The process Kundera describes is also what happened to many revolutionaries in Iran after 1979, and what author Asar Nafisi was describing about that country, something I discussed in this previous post.]

Comments

Undoing the leftist deed — 31 Comments

  1. Ahh, Communism, it’s such a seductive idea. On paper it works. In our dreams it works. But in reality it never works because humans are complex and vary greatly in our talents, abilities, ambitions, and ethics.

    When you have a collective enterprise such as a farm, it quickly becomes apparent that there are some who work harder, pay more attention to details, and do more than their share. There are also those who will not work as hard, be les interested in the enterprise, do less than their share, but expect an equal share of the benefits. Eventually, the diligent workers get disgusted and want their lazier brethren to pick it up. When that happens morale sags and if the lazy workers don’t pick it up, the hard workers begin to take it easier. Production suffers and the blame game begins. If they can, the hard workers will leave for better opportunities. If the industrious can’t leave, they slow their efforts to match the less industrious. Production slows even more, reaching subsistence levels or worse. Now everyone is equal – equally miserable. This happened on several communal farms started in the U.S back in the 1900s.

    In addition, a market economy is too complex to be run from a central authority. The USSR did its best to put smart, qualified people in charge, but they continually failed to meet the production quotas. Primarily because they could not anticipate all of the vagaries of supply and demand. The result was bare shelves and long lines for staple goods.

    Those born since 1989 probably have no knowledge of the USSR and Red China’s failures. But surely they could look at Cuba, Venezuela, and Zimbabwe as more contemporary experiments in Communism that have resulted in equality of misery……..except for the elites.

  2. For the blueprint of the Communist takeover of Czechoslovakia, read And Not a Shot is Fired. Free for the downloading.

    Originally published in Czech under the title: How Parliament Can Play a Revolutionary Part in the Transition to Socialism and the Role of the Popular Masses.

    Jan Kozak, the author, was a member of the Secretariat of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia.

  3. The socialists always claimed they could create heaven on earth. They could eliminate war, poverty and injustice. They were implicitly claiming they could change human nature. It didn’t work, but they killed a lot of people trying.

  6. A quick thought:

    The reporter approaches the weeping woman. “I’m so sorry! I understand that your beloved child has drowned.”

    The woman, in despair: “Yes! And there was nothing I could do. I can’t swim, and the sea is so turbulent!”

    The reporter: “I need to ask you—there was a man sleeping near you in a beach chair. He was a championship swimmer and has worked as a lifeguard for years. I’m told you know him—“

    The woman, furiously: “Yes! I couldn’t ask HIM to help! He is obnoxious!”

    The reporter: “But he would have saved the child!”

    The woman, contemptuously: “I wish he had been like Reagan, who was a lifeguard when he was young. I would have wakened HIM. He was so generous hearted!”

    The reporter, incredulously: “But you needed a swimmer, a rescuer! Obnoxious or generous—he would have saved your child, and he was here, available!”

    The woman: “There should have been someone else available! If there had been a whole country drowning, I wouldn’t have chosen an obnoxious character to rescue it! I have standards! I have principles!”

    She walks off.

    A man comes up to the reporter, hesitantly: “Excuse me,” the man says, “I’m so sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but your child also drowned. If only there had been a swimmer, a lifeguard available!”

  8. I’m not sure how much idealism is in the current American radical movement. There is some, but the dominant strain seems to be nihilism.

    Peter Drucker wrote that prior to WWI, the main impetus behind European socialist movements was hope; affter WWI, it was more about jealously and resentment.

    The ratio of nihilism to hope is certainly much higher among present-day American Progs than it was among New Deal Democrats, or JFK Democrats, or even among the Commies of those eras.

  9. There, everyone is a note in a sublime Bach fugue, and anyone who refuses to be one is a mere use­less and meaningless black dot that need only be caught and crushed between thumb and finger like a flea.

    There is more depth to this than i bet most realize…
    Ever try to crush a flea?
    You cant crush a flea between thumb and finger…

    I guess the meaning above would matter if Kundera ever actually dealt with fleas… and whether the person reading had or not… and whether we know Kundera did or not…

    funny thing meaning…

    [another funny thing was how i advised everyone to read about the Czech history before all this started happening… ]

  10. David Foster:

    I totally agree.

    Many of the useful idiots are idealistic, though. Still, not as many as in the past. What seems to animate even a lot of them these days is hatred for the US, and a feeling of guilt that needs to be expiated.

  11. In addition, a market economy is too complex to be run from a central authority. The USSR did its best to put smart, qualified people in charge, but they continually failed to meet the production quotas. Primarily because they could not anticipate all of the vagaries of supply and demand. The result was bare shelves and long lines for staple goods.

    this was not true… very very untrue…

    Many of the operations were attempted to run by soviets (councils), and so did not run much at all… but worse… they lied as to their projection and production, with each lie being passed to the next stage of things and each layer skewing and screwing the next..

    The Bolsheviks and their allies came out with a program called “soviet government.” The soviet system was described as “a higher type of state” and “a higher form of democracy” which would “arouse the masses of the exploited toilers to the task of making new history.”

    Furthermore, it offered “to the oppressed toiling masses the opportunity to participate actively in the free construction of a new society”. According to Lenin, the author of these quotations, soviet rule “is nothing else than the organized form of the dictatorship of the proletariat.”

    A code of rules governing elections to the soviets was framed in March 1918, but the following classes were disqualified to vote: “Those who employ others for profit; those who live on incomes not derived from their own work – interest on capital, industrial enterprises or landed property; private business men, agents, middlemen; monks and priests of all denominations; ex-employees of the old police services and members of the Romanov dynasty; lunatics and criminals.”

    With village and factory soviets as a base, there arose a vast pyramid of district, cantonal, county and regional soviets, each with its executive soviet. Over and above these stood the “All-Russian Soviet Congress,” which appointed an “All-Russian Central Executive Committee” of not more than 200 members, which in turn chooses the “Soviet of People’s Commissaries” — the Ministry. Beginning with a minimum of three and maximum of 50 members for smaller communities, the maximum for town soviets was fixed at 1,000 members.

    Committees in committees and in committees like the Matryoshka dolls

    [below i have quoted previously (of course)]
    Soviets and Factory Committees in the Russian Revolution – Peter Rachleff
    https://libcom.org/library/soviets-factory-committees-russian-revolution-peter-rachleff

    More and more factories elected delegates. Within three days, there were 226 delegates representing 96 factories and workshops (the principle was usually one delegate for every 100 workers in a factory). It was decided to admit representatives of the socialist parties (Bolsheviks, Mensheviks, and Social-Revolutionaries). On October 17th, this group decided on the name “Soviet of Workers’ Deputies” and elected a provisional executive committee of 22 members (two for each of the seven areas of the city, two for each of the four most important unions) and decided to publish its own newspaper, “News from the Soviet of Workers’ Deputies.”
    [snip]
    ………….. the factory committees dealt solely with the problems of continuing production within their factories. Many sprang up in the face of lock-outs or attempted sabotage by the factory owners. It was through these committees that workers hoped to solve their initial problems–how to get production going again, how to provide for themselves and their families in the midst of economic chaos. Many workers were faced with the choice of taking over production themselves or starving.
    [snip]
    The real activity was represented by the incredible proliferation of factory committees, organs consisting of and controlled by the workers within each factory. It was through these committees that most of the workers sought to solve their problems.

    These committees were seen to provide the organisational structure through which workers could confront–and hopefully solve–their first problem: the taking over of production within their factory. Only through organs such as the factory committees, directly controlled by all the workers assembled within a factory, could the workers develop the organisation, solidarity, and shared knowledge necessary to manage production.
    [snip]
    From the outset, the workers’ committees did not limit their demands to higher wages and shorter hours, though these were at the top of every list, what they wanted in addition to material benefits, was a voice in management. On March 4th, for example, the workers of the Skorokhod Shoe Factory in Petrograd did, to be sure, call upon their superiors to grant them an eight-hour day and a wage increase, including double pay for overtime work; but they also demanded official recognition of their factory committee and its right to control the hiring and firing of labour. In the Petrograd Radiotelegraph Factory, a workers’ committee was organised expressly to “work out rules and norms for the internal life of the factory,” while other factory committees were elected chiefly to control the activities of the directors, engineers, and foremen.
    [snip]
    workers turned from making demands concerning wages, working conditions, and the principles of “workers’ control,” to actually taking over and operating an ever greater number of factories.
    [snip]
    No factory could be self-sufficient. Production required raw materials and continued production necessitated a structure of distribution. Many committees began to compete with the committees from other factories, both for the procurement of raw materials and the disposal of their products. Such a solution to the severe problems proved unsatisfactory. Not all the factories could acquire the needed raw materials. Competition drove the prices of raw materials up. More and more factories which had only recently recommenced production found themselves threatened with being forced to close down due to their inability to get needed materials and new machinery. The necessity of federation became apparent.

    ITs already too long…
    but it shows that there was no such idea as “did its best to put smart, qualified people in charge”

    It was a freaking mess… the factory committees were very dysfunctional
    and Lenin was still someplace else..

  12. ArtfldgrUselessNothing, you don’t mean to imply that if the Soviets really had the smartest people at central command that the shelves would have not have been empty, do you? I don’t think it would have made any difference.

  13. Dgr: “but it shows that there was no such idea as “did its best to put smart, qualified people in charge”

    My knowledge of the history inside the USSR is not as great as yours. My contention that the Soviets tried to put smart, qualified people in charge of planning came from a review of a book written about that process. The book review was by David Foster, a frequent commenter here. Maybe he could shed more light on the subject. I have not read the book, in fact can’t recall the title, but I do remember words to the effect that they tried to put smart, qualified people in charge. Your description of running everything by committee rings true. It’s the way centralized thinkers operate. It’s the way our Congress operates. And we know how efficient they are. 🙂

    As long as I’m cleaning up my hastily written comment, I meant to say the communal farms in the U.S. in the 1800s, not the 1900s. Communes were quite popular in the 1800s. The city of Greeley, Colorado was founded as a communal farming community. Horace Greeley (Go West young man, go West) was one of the sponsor/organizers, but he never actually lived in Greeley. Nathan Meeker, after whom Meeker, Colorado is named, was one of the slackers in Greeley. After the commune broke up, he managed to get a government job as an Indian Agent. He managed to screw that job up as well.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meeker_Massacre

  14. re Soviet central planning, here’s the book that JJ mentioned: Red Plenty, by Frances Spufford….part history, part novel. My review is here:

    https://chicagoboyz.net/archives/60918.html

    And yes, many of the people involved in the planning were highly intelligent, even brilliant…of course, there were also game-players, time-servers, and scammers. But if they had ALL been brilliant and dedicated, would it have worked then? I don’t think so.

  15. Another great book about the Soviet economic system is Bitter Waters, by Gennady Andreev-Khomiakov. The author was deputy manager of a Stalin-era Soviet Factory (a sawmill). The general manager to whom he reported was a brilliant, dedicated, and very active man.

    https://chicagoboyz.net/archives/31715.html

    Biggest problem this factory had was getting raw lumber for processing, which was especially frustrating for Gennady, whose father had been in the lumber trade before the Revolution:

    “The free and “unplanned” and therefore ostensibly chaotic character of lumber production before the revolution in reality possessed a definite order. As the season approached, hundreds of thousands of forest workers gathered in small artels of loggers, rafters, and floaters, hired themselves out to entrepreneurs through their foremen, and got all the work done. The Bolsheviks, concerned with “putting order” into life and organizing it according to their single scheme, destroyed that order and introduced their own–and arrived at complete chaos in lumbering.”

    As Gennady says:

    “Such in the immutable law. The forceful subordination of life’s variety into a single mold will be avenged by that variety’s becoming nothing but chaos and disorder.”

  16. “They were implicitly claiming they could change human nature.”

    Which is why I think so many leftists gravitate towards the social sciences. If everyone is merely a product of “society,” by changing society you can change human nature.

  17. I just now read the Kundera quote. Wow. I’m thinking of posting it on Facebook as a farewell, if, as I’ve heard, Facebook is in fact removing posts that support Kyle Rittenhouse, on the grounds that Rittenhouse went on a “murder spree.” You don’t have to think Rittenhouse was entirely in the right to object to that.

    Who needs a complicated and expensive legal system, when we could just have Facebook employees pronounce on guilt and innocence?

  18. “And yes, many of the people involved in the planning were highly intelligent, even brilliant…of course, there were also game-players, time-servers, and scammers. But if they had ALL been brilliant and dedicated, would it have worked then? I don’t think so.”

    What we do know is that some economic systems produce more prosperity than others, even if none of them is ideal, and no one would think of claiming that the best systems are 100% led by the best and the brightest.

    What’s the difference between the abysmal and the better economic systems? The way we choose the business leaders. In free-market systems the mass of consumers vote with their feet. In centrally-planned systems the political leaders appoint the business leaders. I couldn’t have proved in advance from first principles that the mass of humanity voting with its feet would produce more brilliant business leaders (and therefore more prosperity) than the anointed political leaders, but that’s what the hard experience of the last century or show has now shown beyond dispute.

  19. It’s amazing to me that with chaos theory and the advent of distributed processing that the central planning inherent in Marxism still gets any look-in. I guess that math and philosophy are as badly taught as history.

  20. I am very happy that 2020 is smashing people’s eyes open, and making them put on the They Live sunglasses.

    Now you can enter Ymar’s world. Welcome to Ymar’s world. Take a good look. Time is growing short.

  21. “Smashing people’s eyes open” somehow “smashing eyes” doesn’t work as a metaphor or in practice for enabling vision in the real world. In Yammer land it works every time. Keep the laughs coming from the world of darkness.

  22. “But if they had ALL been brilliant and dedicated, would it have worked then? ”
    The answer is no. Remember what happened in the UK after WW2? The socialists came to power and nationalized everything, railways, airlines, automobiles, electricity. All those formerly profitable businesses started losing money. Bureaucrats can’t fun a business.

  23. @M Williams it might not have been as much of a mess… or taken longer to become one… we will never know… what we DO know is that regardless of messy start or great appointments, the end result was failure due to the impossibility of such planning to ever work in replacing a distributed adaptable self organizing system…

  24. Minta Marie Morze on September 2, 2020 at 9:27 pm said:
    A quick thought: – “There should have been a lifeguard available!”
    * * *
    Brilliant!

  26. My contention that the Soviets tried to put smart, qualified people in charge of planning came from a review of a book written about that process. The book review was by David Foster, a frequent commenter here.

    except that Foster was wrong… they didnt “put” anyone in place… it was a mess from the time of the revolution onwards… maybe he is referring to later on once power was consolidated… but its a political system, and their definition of best and smart were not the same as a meritocratic choice of best and smart…

    these were political committees running factories without heads… though there are many books all around as to things, many of them are down right wrong… famous, and wrong too… in the early years it was really bad because no one was in charge… the political committees were about politics… the workers were going to starve unless they got things going… factions were constantly at war…

    later… lies and errors propagated the system without any means to correct them or develop decent numbers… so even if they had magical formula for plans that would work, GIGO ruled the day… garbage numbers in garbage numbers out…

    personally i get tired of many of the books i read from later dates… even the most famous ones… they are accepted as correct, when any browsing of earlier works that were more honest would disprove them… i have not particularly read Foster so i cant comment directly or show example of what he got right or what he got wrong…. but the conflicting stories of how things are or were are legendary in terms of the soviet machine, apologists, and so on.

    Its really hard to get this stuff because so much conflicts if you dont read or havent read a lot of it over time (and had family or friends)

  27. “The flaw, so far beyond the founders’ imagination that it couldn’t have been considered, is the corruption and degredation of the states which the Constitution charges with conducting federal elections.” – Stanley

    I believe the Founders, all well read and shrewd judges of humanity, certainly could imagine such corruption. The Constitution has “guardrails” to mitigate it.
    What they might not have envisioned is the corruption of the Judges, who have torn down the rails and kicked them over the cliff.

  28. “…the only voting system I would support is Heinlein’s. (For those few who don’t know what that is, it’s that only persons who have served in the military can vote. If you want to serve, they have to take you, regardless of mental or physical condition, but you have to serve to vote.)” – Richard Saunders

    Back in the day when I read everything Heinlein wrote (which probably inoculated me against the progressive leftism of the Sixties and thereafter), I agreed with you.
    He was writing as a member of the military between the World Wars, and a staunch American patriot.

    Today, in critique of that idea, all you have to remember is that John F. Kerry is a veteran.
    Pfui.

    https://www.military.com/veteran-jobs/career-advice/military-transition/famous-veteran-robert-a-heinlein.html

    Heinlein was finally admitted [to Annapolis] in 1925 and graduated in 1929 with the Naval equivalent to a B.A. in Naval Engineering. The aircraft carrier USS Lexington became the new ensign’s home away from home where he operated radio communications equipment and coordinated the carrier’s planes. Heinlein’s captain, Ernest J. King, was destined to serve as the Chief of Naval Operations during World War II. Between 1933 and 1934, Heinlein served on the USS Roper and earned the rank of lieutenant. After surviving tuberculosis and chronic sea sickness, he was given early retirement in 1934.
    …
    When World War II broke out, Heinlein attempted to reenlist with the Navy but was denied. In order to support the war effort, he began working as a civilian engineer at the Naval Air Experiment Center in Philadelphia. He was able to secure work for fellow writers Isaac Asimov and L. Sprague de Camp. All three worked on ship and aircraft repairs while discussing their ideas about the future.

    Coincidentally, Kerry was also a Navy Lieutenant (Wikipedia).
    “Kerry served as a Lieutenant in the United States Navy during the period from 1966 to 1970.”

    FWIW, the fictional British naval hero, Horatio Hornblower, was also afflicted with a queasy stomach, which is not conducive to one’s well-being in a warship, but he somehow managed not to let that become a handicap.

  29. Artfldgr:

    I’m curious to know your opinion of the book by Orlando Figes entitled A People’s Tragedy: The Russian Revolution: 1891-1924.

  30. “And yes, many of the people involved in the planning were highly intelligent, even brilliant…of course, there were also game-players, time-servers, and scammers. But if they had ALL been brilliant and dedicated, would it have worked then? I don’t think so.”

    Agreed.

    https://mises.org/library/economic-calculation-socialist-commonwealth

    Assuming the best of motives among the modern central planning mongers – which I think is overly generous – the problem remains one of knowledge; they don’t have it and can’t get it.

    Hayek points out that the person most interested in the outcome of an economic transaction – the one who has skin in the game – is also the most likely to have the means and motive for acquiring the knowledge to make the optimum decision.

    Like their central-planning cohorts in the former Soviet Bloc, technocrats in the West operate under the same hubris; that they have a better grasp of what is needed than the masses in the great unwashed. Even someone as enthusiastic in his defense of the West as Steven Pinker makes this mistake. His “Enlightenment Now!” is a tour de force in the technical defense of the Enlightenment which comprises the first half of the book. The second half, a philosophical defense, is less compelling in part because he doesn’t understand the role of individual initiative in positive outcomes. Like Cass Sunstein, he thinks that individuals need a technocratic ‘Nudge’ to get the best out of our personal decision making.

    Frankly, though, I think that, contrary to conventional conservative wisdom, Socialism actually does work as intended. If there is a better system for destroying the middle class (with its moderating effect on cultural movement) and aggregating wealth and power in the hands of a chosen few, I have yet to see it.

    It’s past time we stopped giving the moral high ground to the ‘idealists’ who want to ‘actualize’ the ‘revolution’. As O’Brien pointed out, ” One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship.”

  31. I am struck by how this piece is a pre-echo of your piece on the Sorcerer’s Apprentice.

    It’s really the same story isn’t it? We have problems we want to solve, but we (the Left primarily, but certainly not exclusively) want to take a shortcut. So we call forth Spirits, whether they be broomsticks or boomsticks, to get things done Faster.

    And then we find that they are out of our control, and disaster beckons.

    Most smart people are idiots. I say that as a smart person.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

↑