McCarthyism: The Rosetta Stone of Liberal Lies

[SHTSPRAYER]

I know how much Paco, Butt Bacon, and Piss Boy must love Coulter; I was going to wait until tomorrow because nothing is better than waking up on Sunday morning and reading Ann Coulter, but not to worry, I have another article all cued up:

McCarthyism: The Rosetta Stone of Liberal Lies
11/07/2007

When I wrote a ferocious defense of Sen. Joe McCarthy in Treason: Liberal Treachery From the Cold War to the War on Terrorism, liberals chose not to argue with me. Instead they posted a scrolling series of reasons not to read my book, such as that I wear short skirts, date boys, and that Treason was not a scholarly tome.

After printing rabidly venomous accounts of McCarthy for half a century based on zero research, liberals would only accept research presenting an alternative view of McCarthy that included, as the Los Angeles Times put it, at least the "pretense of scholarly throat-clearing and objectivity."

This week, they got it. The great M. Stanton Evans has finally released Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America's Enemies. Based on a lifetime's work, including nearly a decade of thoroughgoing research, stores of original research and never-before-seen government files, this 672-page book ends the argument on Joe McCarthy. Look for it hidden behind stacks of Bill Clinton's latest self-serving book at a bookstore near you.
Evans' book is such a tour de force that liberals are already preparing a "yesterday's news" defense -- as if they had long ago admitted the truth about McCarthy. Yes, and they fought shoulder to shoulder with Ronald Reagan to bring down the Evil Empire. Thus, Publishers Weekly preposterously claims that "the history Evans relates is already largely known, if not fully accepted." Somebody better tell George Clooney.

The McCarthy period is the Rosetta stone of all liberal lies. It is the textbook on how they rewrite history -- the sound chamber of liberal denunciations, their phony victimhood as they demean and oppress their enemies, their false imputation of dishonesty to their opponents, their legalization of every policy dispute, their ability to engage in lock-step shouting campaigns, and the black motives concealed by their endless cacophony.

The true story of Joe McCarthy, told in meticulous, irrefutable detail in Blacklisted by History, is that from 1938 to 1946, the Democratic Party acquiesced in a monstrous conspiracy being run through the State Department, the military establishment, and even the White House to advance the Soviet cause within the U.S. government.

In the face of the Democrats' absolute refusal to admit to their fecklessness, fatuity and recklessness in allowing known Soviet spies to penetrate the deepest levels of government, McCarthy demanded an accounting.

Even if one concedes to on-the-one-hand-on-the-other-hand whiners like Ronald Radosh that Truman's Secretary of State Dean Acheson didn't like communism, his record is what it was. And that record was to treat Soviet spies like members of the Hasty Pudding Club.

Rather than own up to their moral blindness to Soviet espionage, Democrats fired up the liberal slander machine, which would be deployed again and again over the next half century to the present day. In hiding their own perfidy, liberals were guilty of every sin they lyingly imputed to McCarthy. There were no "McCarthyites" until liberals came along.

Blacklisted by History proves that every conventional belief about McCarthy is wrong, including:

-- That he lied about his war service: He was a tailgunner in World War II;

-- That he was a drunk: He would generally nurse a single drink all night;

-- That he made the whole thing up: He produced loads of Soviet spies in government jobs;

-- That he just did it for political gain: He understood perfectly the godless evil of communism.

Ironically, for all of their love of conspiracy theories -- the rigging of the 2000 election, vote suppression in Ohio in 2004, 9/11 being an inside job, oil companies covering up miracle technology that would allow cars to run on dirt, Britney Spears' career, etc., etc. -- when presented with an actual conspiracy of Soviet spies infiltrating the U.S. government, they laughed it off like world-weary skeptics and dedicated themselves to slandering Joe McCarthy.

Then as now, liberals protect themselves from detection with wild calumnies against anybody who opposes them. They have no interest in -- or aptitude for -- persuasion. Their goal is to anathematize their enemies. Blacklisted by History removes the curse from one of the greatest patriots in American history.

Direkshun, here’s the link:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=23316#continueA

[NewPhin]

Yay! Another conservative attempt to revise history! I always thought the conservatives claimed revisionism was a liberal game?


Reagan was God!
Nixon was justified!
McCarthy was unjustly villified!

What's next?

[SHTSPRAYER]

Yay! Another conservative attempt to revise history! I always thought the conservatives claimed revisionism was a liberal game?


Reagan was God!
Nixon was justified!
McCarthy was unjustly villified!

What's next?

Revise history or set the record straight?


Silly Moonbat.

[NewPhin]

Oh oh! I know what's next...

You all might want to start working on Bush II as a successful presidency. It's bound to take a while to sell that one.

[SHTSPRAYER]

Oh oh! I know what's next...

You all might want to start working on Bush II as a successful presidency. It's bound to take a while to sell that one.



The true story of Joe McCarthy, told in meticulous, irrefutable detail in Blacklisted by History, is that from 1938 to 1946, the Democratic Party acquiesced in a monstrous conspiracy being run through the State Department, the military establishment, and even the White House to advance the Soviet cause within the U.S. government.

In the face of the Democrats' absolute refusal to admit to their fecklessness, fatuity and recklessness in allowing known Soviet spies to penetrate the deepest levels of government, McCarthy demanded an accounting.

Even if one concedes to on-the-one-hand-on-the-other-hand whiners like Ronald Radosh that Truman's Secretary of State Dean Acheson didn't like communism, his record is what it was. And that record was to treat Soviet spies like members of the Hasty Pudding Club.

Rather than own up to their moral blindness to Soviet espionage, Democrats fired up the liberal slander machine, which would be deployed again and again over the next half century to the present day. In hiding their own perfidy, liberals were guilty of every sin they lyingly imputed to McCarthy. There were no "McCarthyites" until liberals came along.

Blacklisted by History proves that every conventional belief about McCarthy is wrong, including:

-- That he lied about his war service: He was a tailgunner in World War II;

-- That he was a drunk: He would generally nurse a single drink all night;

-- That he made the whole thing up: He produced loads of Soviet spies in government jobs;

-- That he just did it for political gain: He understood perfectly the godless evil of communism.

Ironically, for all of their love of conspiracy theories -- the rigging of the 2000 election, vote suppression in Ohio in 2004, 9/11 being an inside job, oil companies covering up miracle technology that would allow cars to run on dirt, Britney Spears' career, etc., etc. -- when presented with an actual conspiracy of Soviet spies infiltrating the U.S. government, they laughed it off like world-weary skeptics and dedicated themselves to slandering Joe McCarthy.

Then as now, liberals protect themselves from detection with wild calumnies against anybody who opposes them. They have no interest in -- or aptitude for -- persuasion. Their goal is to anathematize their enemies. Blacklisted by History removes the curse from one of the greatest patriots in American history.

[NewPhin]

Didn't conservatives like... support protection of privacy and civil liberties at one time?

[SHTSPRAYER]

Didn't conservatives like... support protection of privacy and civil liberties at one time?


Amazing! The same canard used to protect Soviet spies during the Cold War, moonbats now use to protect Al Queda operatives in the USA!

You must come from a long line of moonbats.

Ironically, for all of their love of conspiracy theories -- the rigging of the 2000 election, vote suppression in Ohio in 2004, 9/11 being an inside job, oil companies covering up miracle technology that would allow cars to run on dirt, Britney Spears' career, etc., etc. -- when presented with an actual conspiracy of Soviet spies infiltrating the U.S. government, they laughed it off like world-weary skeptics and dedicated themselves to slandering Joe McCarthy.

[Baby Lee]

McCarthyism as a great evil endures as a result of taking on those who create dramatic content.

[VAChief]

80434

The caped crusaders share an intimate moment.

[SHTSPRAYER]

The caped crusaders share an intimate moment.


Actually, I only brought this up because a few moonbats have been calling me Roy Cohn.

ROFL

[Portlantis]

A Rebuttal

http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/4324.html

The Exhumation of Joe McCarthy

Johann Hari, writing for the Independent (London) (March 26, 2004)

The grave of Senator Joe McCarthy has been pillaged. In the think tanks of the Republican right, in the broadcasts of Fox News, and in the pages of some of the most popular books in America, he lives again. From the mid-1950s until 2001, there was a consensus in America that McCarthyism was a brief period of political psychosis. The Senator's drunken belief that the democratic American left consisted mainly of closet Reds working to subvert the United States was seen as risible; a sulphuric firework that threatened American civil liberties and democracy for a moment but then deservedly died away.

No longer. The fourth best-selling book in the US last year - Ann Coulter's Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism - was an explicit apologia for McCarthy. "What this country needed in the 1950s was Joe McCarthy," she says. "Amid all the mandatory condemnations of Joe McCarthy, the little detail about his being right always seems to get lost. His fundamental thesis was absolutely correct... He was not terrorising people purposelessly. His targets were Soviet sympathisers and Soviet spies." She describes the Hollywood blacklisting of suspected Communists as "honourable", and concludes, "McCarthy's gravest error was in underestimating the problem of Communist subversion."

She is not a lone madwoman. The rehabilitation of McCarthy is currently a major theme on the US right. William Buckley Jr, the grande dame of American conservative intellectuals, has published a tedious but aggressive novel, The Redhunter, which glorifies the Senator. The historian Arthur Herman has published an acclaimed revisionist biography which says McCarthy's fears "weren't paranoid delusions. They were true." Campaigning group Accuracy in Academia recently staged a conference entitled "Rethinking McCarthy". Henry Kissinger has noted - echoing Coulter - that McCarthy "did not go far enough."

Is it possible that there was a vast Communist plot to subvert American democracy, and only McCarthy understood the depth of the problem? The new McCarthyites claim their reappraisal was triggered by new evidence: the declassification of a series of documents from the Soviet archives known as the Verona cables. These documents do indeed show that some of the individuals defended by the 1950s left and savaged by McCarthy were actually Soviet spies. The most prominent is the left's old cause celebre, Alger Hiss.

This is a serious blow, and it should be honestly acknowledged. A minority of people on the left are still inclined to see 1950s Stalinists as misguided idealists, decent believers in equality and liberty who somehow went astray. This is unsustainable. By the time Hiss was offering his secrets to Stalin's agents, the news about the gulags - vast concentration camps which slaughtered over 15 million innocent people - was out and beyond dispute. The US has many flaws, but it is lunatic to believe it is domestically equivalent to this; there are no mass graves in Kansas.

Too much of the left for too long implied there was moral equivalence between the two sides in the Cold War. They're wrong: the defense of a basically free society is not the same as the defense of a totalitarian state. A society where minorities can organise and fight for recognition is not the same as a society where minorities are herded up and executed. Hiss was not swapping secrets between two equally bad tribes.

But it's a wild leap to say that these cables therefore vindicate McCarthy. A handful of his allegations have turned out to have been right. A handful of Mystic Meg's predictions no doubt end up being accurate too. McCarthy made so many accusations - with virtually no evidence - that it would be extraordinary if he did not hit the target a few times.

More than this, it is a blatant distortion of the historical record to claim that only McCarthy was opposed to Communist spies. Most of the democratic left saw the menace of Stalinism and the crucial importance of defending America's imperfect democracy. If anything, McCarthy damaged the cause of anti-Communism by associating it with paranoid madness.

Some people will see this as an arcane historical debate. They are wrong. The Verona cables were decoded in 1995, but they have only been vigorously debated since 11 September 2001. There's a reason: at the start of a long war against Islamic fundamentalism, Americans are thinking about the launch of their last long war. How McCarthy is viewed provides us with an indication of how the "War on Terror" will proceed.

If the errors of the early stages of the Cold War are not acknowledged now, they will be repeated. The history of the 1950s is a must-read today. The first lesson is clear: within America, dissent must be defended vigorously from Coulter-style charges of treachery. The way to defend democracy is not to shut it down but to embrace it. Public debate and a frank analysis of American mistakes will make the battle against Islamic fundamentalism more efficient, not less.

In particular, it will help us to distinguish between when the US acts in a legitimate war against Islamic fundamentalism, and when it uses this as a pretext aggressively to extend its own business interests. This blurring went on throughout the Cold War: uppity democracies trying to fend off US business exploitation, like Guatemala, were crushed in the name of the war on communism. The neo-McCarthyites must not be allowed to silence opponents of aggressive US businesses with a howl of "Treachery!" It is one thing to die fighting Stalinism or Bin Laden; it is another to kill for the United Fruit Company or Halliburton.

The second lesson is that to oppose Islamic fundamentalism, Americans must repudiate their own far right. A Cold War in which America was led by McCarthy and his acolytes might not have been winnable at all. An America that jailed people for their political beliefs or that launched "limited nuclear wars" (another McCarthy obsession) might have been an America that collapsed under its own lunacies before the Soviet Union did. The US side in the Cold War was at its weakest - and its most morally indefensible - when it was fought by the President politically closest to McCarthy: Richard Nixon.

The third lesson is that the US and Britain should not back the far right abroad - foreign McCarthys - in the mistaken belief that they will help us to prevail. The Cold War led the US to overthrow many decent democratic regimes that it feared were pro-Soviet (or simply found economically inconvenient): Salvador Allende in Chile, the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, Mohammed Mossadeq in Iran. This damaged the American cause by making it - in foreign policy terms - for a time as totalitarian as the Soviet Union.

The same mistake may be repeated today. If the US continues to back fascistic dictatorships like the House of Saud, Islam Karimov in Uzbekistan and now Colonel Gaddafi, in the mistaken belief that they will help us in the "War on Terror", then the US will continue to haemorrhage its moral superiority over Islamic fundamentalists. The best way to defend democracy is to spread democracy, not supress it in the interests of fair-weather friends.

The corpse of Joe McCarthy is being paraded before us. The more extreme wing of the US right believe he offers us a model for how to fight a war against Islamic fundamentalism. They're right - and it's a model that leads straight to liquidated democracy and defeat.

[SHTSPRAYER]

McCarthy goes after Soviet spies, moonbats are outraged! Bush taps the phones of Al Quada operatives, moonbats are outraged!

[SHTSPRAYER]

These documents do indeed show that some of the individuals defended by the 1950s left and savaged by McCarthy were actually Soviet spies. The most prominent is the left's old cause celebre, Alger Hiss.

This is a serious blow, and it should be honestly acknowledged. A minority of people on the left are still inclined to see 1950s Stalinists as misguided idealists, decent believers in equality and liberty who somehow went astray. This is unsustainable. By the time Hiss was offering his secrets to Stalin's agents, the news about the gulags - vast concentration camps which slaughtered over 15 million innocent people - was out and beyond dispute. The US has many flaws, but it is lunatic to believe it is domestically equivalent to this; there are no mass graves in Kansas.

Agreed.



Most of the democratic left saw the menace of Stalinism and the crucial importance of defending America's imperfect democracy.

Totally contradicts previous paragraph. While there were Democrats who "saw the menace of Stalinism" there were no Leftists. Leftists were on the side of Stalin. Paul Roberson, Walter Duranty, Alger Hiss...

The fact is both Truman and Eisenhower were fully aware of the infestation of Soviet operatives in the state department and the pentagon, however they supressed this information to prevent a scandal and a national panic. They were right in that sense, because McCarthy did cause fear in the general population. Whether that fear was justified or not is open to debate, but I know that the Lefts interpretation of this is laughable, as their was no witch hunts et al nor was their mass roundups. That is just ridiculous. I think McCarthy's investigations led to about 12 people losing their jobs (and they were all Soviet sympathizers/agents).



If the errors of the early stages of the Cold War are not acknowledged now, they will be repeated. The history of the 1950s is a must-read today. The first lesson is clear: within America, dissent must be defended vigorously from Coulter-style charges of treachery. The way to defend democracy is not to shut it down but to embrace it. Public debate and a frank analysis of American mistakes will make the battle against Islamic fundamentalism more efficient, not less.

Total hogwash. The writer sets up Ann Coulter as the demon, and by virtue of being attacked by her, de facto you are the "good guy".

Dissent must be defended, not treason. Coulter never leveled charges at dissent, she levels charges at treason, however the Left wishes to twist the meaning of those words with political correctness semantics.

The second lesson is that to oppose Islamic fundamentalism, Americans must repudiate their own far right. A Cold War in which America was led by McCarthy and his acolytes might not have been winnable at all.

ROFL

The pro-Stalin Left must have been the vanguard in our defeat of Soviet aggression!

The rest of this is just silly prattle.

[Messier]

McCarthy didn't just go after communists, he went after what he called communist sympathizers, and turned Americans on one another through fear. Fear is a horrible reason for political action.

I remember Bush after 9/11 saying that we can't act out of fear, that is what the terrorists want. I don't see how we've responded with anything but fear.

[Ultra Peanut]

Dearest Conservatives,

Find. A. New. Schtick.

McCarthy didn't just go after communists, he went after what he called communist sympathizers, and turned Americans on one another through fear.But that's okay, because Hollywood is just a bunch of resentful jerks intent upon smearing Great McCarthy's glorious name. It really wasn't so bad to be accused of being a communist for no reason.

[banyon]

Most of the democratic left saw the menace of Stalinism and the crucial importance of defending America's imperfect democracy.

The true story of Joe McCarthy, told in meticulous, irrefutable detail in Blacklisted by History, is that from 1938 to 1946, the Democratic Party acquiesced in a monstrous conspiracy being run through the State Department, the military establishment, and even the White House to advance the Soviet cause within the U.S. government.

So... Which of these statements is correct? :spock:

[SHTSPRAYER]

So... Which of these statements is correct? :spock:

I'll pick up Treason at the library during the week, and see which Democrats and how many "acquiesced" for Ann to make that charge.

Fair enough?

[banyon]

I'll pick up Treason at the library during the week, and see which Democrats and how many "acquiesced" for Ann to make that charge.

Fair enough?

That won't help, as the statement doesn't limit itself to a few Democrats, it overreach and misstates. The two statements are logically inconsistent, One must be true, and the other must be false.

[irishjayhawk]

ROFL

McCarthyism being defended now. Holy shit, I've seen it all.

[SHTSPRAYER]

So... Which of these statements is correct? :spock:


I'm not following your argument, A Leftist apologist said the first quote, and Ann Coulter said the other.

[SHTSPRAYER]

That won't help, as the statement doesn't limit itself to a few Democrats, it overreach and misstates. The two statements are logically inconsistent, One must be true, and the other must be false.


Exactly, and to see if Ann's statement is true, I'll have to study the details of that charge.

[banyon]

I'm not following your argument, A Leftist apologist said the first quote, and Ann Coulter said the other.

Oh, I see. I didn't realize you were quoting someone else's post since you didn't use quotations marks or the quote tags and I hadn't read that post.

I just assumed you were cutting and pasting as fast as possible.

[banyon]

Great then. I'll be looking forward to the "proof" which corroborates her ridiculous statement:

The true story of Joe McCarthy, told in meticulous, irrefutable detail in Blacklisted by History, is that from 1938 to 1946, the Democratic Party acquiesced in a monstrous conspiracy being run through the State Department, the military establishment, and even the White House to advance the Soviet cause within the U.S. government.

[BucEyedPea]

Yay! Another conservative attempt to revise history! I always thought the conservatives claimed revisionism was a liberal game?


Reagan was God!
Nixon was justified!
McCarthy was unjustly villified!

What's next?

One reason we have a Freedom of Information Act is to get info that would otherwise remain unknown. After the Soviet Union fell, the KGB released their own files and records and our govt did have Soviet agents in it. Commies admitted it. So as far as I am concerned McCarthy was right. It was just the hysteria that go out of hand, but then there was genuine fear after what the Soviets did post WWII. And they were there much earlier...as communism ( socialism) was chic with the intellectuals in the 1930's.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

One reason we have a Freedom of Information Act is to get info that would otherwise remain unknown. After the Soviet Union fell, the KGB released their own files and records and our govt did have Soviet agents in it. Commies admitted it. So as far as I am concerned McCarthy was right. It was just the hysteria that go out of hand, but then there was genuine fear after what the Soviets did post WWII. And they were there much earlier...as communism ( socialism) was chic with the intellectuals in the 1930's.

Communism and socialism are not the same entity, but nice try.

[irishjayhawk]

One reason we have a Freedom of Information Act is to get info that would otherwise remain unknown. After the Soviet Union fell, the KGB released their own files and records and our govt did have Soviet agents in it. Commies admitted it. So as far as I am concerned McCarthy was right. It was just the hysteria that go out of hand, but then there was genuine fear after what the Soviets did post WWII. And they were there much earlier...as communism ( socialism) was chic with the intellectuals in the 1930's.

The horror. People in the government sympathetic to a different cause than yours. :eek:

[NewPhin]

One reason we have a Freedom of Information Act is to get info that would otherwise remain unknown. After the Soviet Union fell, the KGB released their own files and records and our govt did have Soviet agents in it. Commies admitted it. So as far as I am concerned McCarthy was right. It was just the hysteria that go out of hand, but then there was genuine fear after what the Soviets did post WWII. And they were there much earlier...as communism ( socialism) was chic with the intellectuals in the 1930's.


Nazis were liberal!

[HolyHandgernade]

I'll stick with American idealists over American paranoids:

http://www.evolvefish.com/fish/media/S-SalazarOfficeBanner.jpg

['Hamas' Jenkins]

I'll stick with American idealists over American paranoids:

http://www.evolvefish.com/fish/media/S-SalazarOfficeBanner.jpg

PSSHHH...that quote was obviously taken out of context :rolleyes:

[NewPhin]

I'll stick with American idealists over American paranoids:

http://www.evolvefish.com/fish/media/S-SalazarOfficeBanner.jpg


Right... just like Franklin said, commies "deserve neither freedom nor security."

[Reaper16]

Actually, I only brought this up because a few moonbats have been calling me Roy Cohn.

ROFL
I wish you were the Roy Cohn from "Angels in America."

['Hamas' Jenkins]

I wish you were the Roy Cohn from "Angels in America."

It's the same person.

[Baby Lee]

The horror. People in the government sympathetic to a different cause than yours. :eek:

The mind reels.

Though at times I sense that yours just jangles around in space.

[Reaper16]

It's the same person.
I know that.

It's just that the fictional depiction of Roy Cohn in Tony Kushner's masterpiece is tortured by a ghost in addition to dying from AIDS. It's a little harsher.

[BucEyedPea]

Communism and socialism are not the same entity, but nice try.
Not really. We've debated the nuances of these two systems before. Even a dictionary defines them similarly. For one, communisim and socialism were used interchangebly in the 19th century when Marx wrote his stuff. Marx was a socialist ( wrote the Communist Manifesto), which is just a phase until the state, as a dictatorship withered away then there would be communism where people freely shared everything. Since state's rarely give back their power to allow no state at all....they still wind up in the same place. They're both the same economic/social system. And they can be used interchangeably in this context which is how I used them.

In the modern era people have come to see the communists more as the violent revolutionary types to implement socialism...aka Marxist/Leninists as opposed to the Fabian approach in socialist democracies.

[BucEyedPea]

Nazis were liberal!

Neither communists, socialists or fascists are liberal.
The Nazi's were socialists, national socialists.
Fascists and socialist/communist have usually fought each other for some strange reason.
But none of them are really liberals in the classical sense—small and limited central govt.
The socialists just co-opted the term because it was less alarming sounding to the public.

[BucEyedPea]

I'll stick with American idealists over American paranoids:

http://www.evolvefish.com/fish/media/S-SalazarOfficeBanner.jpg

You know what's funny about that quote? It's taken way out of context. It was about the people not being able to have arms to fight the British. It's actually an anti-gun control quote. Yet, liberals ( left) and libertarians use it today against the Bush administration.

[Messier]

You know what's funny about that quote? It's taken way out of context. It was about the people not being able to have arms to fight the British. It's actually an anti-gun control quote. Yet, liberals ( left) and libertarians use it today against the Bush administration.

It doesn't take away the impact of the quote when made to be relevant to current issues.

[SBK]

You know what's funny about that quote? It's taken way out of context. It was about the people not being able to have arms to fight the British. It's actually an anti-gun control quote. Yet, liberals ( left) and libertarians use it today against the Bush administration.

LMAO the irony.

[SBK]

McCarthy found a ton of commies in government but today he's categorized as a nut that was on a witch hunt. Makes no sense to me.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Not really. We've debated the nuances of these two systems before. Even a dictionary defines them similarly. For one, communisim and socialism were used interchangebly in the 19th century when Marx wrote his stuff. Marx was a socialist ( wrote the Communist Manifesto), which is just a phase until the state, as a dictatorship withered away then there would be communism where people freely shared everything. Since state's rarely give back their power to allow no state at all....they still wind up in the same place. They're both the same economic/social system. And they can be used interchangeably in this context which is how I used them.

In the modern era people have come to see the communists more as the violent revolutionary types to implement socialism...aka Marxist/Leninists as opposed to the Fabian approach in socialist democracies.

And I hate to break this to you, but both Bush and Kerry were liberals in the "classic" definition of the term.

Furthermore, if someone advocates tenets of socialism, it doesn't mean that they are for communism, which is a derivative of socialism, not all encompassing. I don't know if you are unaware of this, or you are deliberately trying to conflate the two as a red herring.


This is your logic:

Some socialists are communists

Therefore socialism=communism.

That doesn't pass muster.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

McCarthy found a ton of commies in government but today he's categorized as a nut that was on a witch hunt. Makes no sense to me.

This thread really should be stickied.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

In a free country, we punish men for the crimes they commit, but never for the opinions they have.

It is now evident that the present Administration has fully embraced, for political advantage, McCarthyism. I am not referring to the Senator from Wisconsin. He is only important in that his name has taken on the dictionary meaning of the word. It is the corruption of truth, the abandonment of the due process law. It is the use of the big lie and the unfounded accusation against any citizen in the name of Americanism or security. It is the rise to power of the demagogue who lives on untruth; it is the spreading of fear and the destruction of faith in every level of society

--Harry Truman

[go bowe]

Yay! Another conservative attempt to revise history! I always thought the conservatives claimed revisionism was a liberal game?


Reagan was God!
Nixon was justified!
McCarthy was unjustly villified!

What's next?trust me, you shouldn't ask...

[Friendo]

trust me, you shouldn't ask...

The Revelation... as self-fulfilling prophesy?

[Ultra Peanut]

And I hate to break this to you, but both Bush and Kerry were liberals in the "classic" definition of the term.

Furthermore, if someone advocates tenets of socialism, it doesn't mean that they are for communism, which is a derivative of socialism, not all encompassing. I don't know if you are unaware of this, or you are deliberately trying to conflate the two as a red herring.


This is your logic:

Some socialists are communists

Therefore socialism=communism.

That doesn't pass muster.Well I mean, Europe seems to be doing terribly with all of that COMMUNISM.

[banyon]

Well I mean, Europe seems to be doing terribly with all of that COMMUNISM.

Oh, she's got a loony explanation for that too. Even though Europe appears to be doing well by every standard economic index that everyone else uses, if you look at an obscure economic index that no one else in their right mind uses, then they're really not, or someting along those lines.

[banyon]

Neither communists, socialists or fascists are liberal.
The Nazi's were socialists, national socialists.
Fascists and socialist/communist have usually fought each other for some strange reason.
But none of them are really liberals in the classical sense—small and limited central govt.
.

Here we are at the crux of the problem. Your terms are outdated. Using the antiquated meanings of the terms and trying to apply them to people who self identify with modern connotations of the terms generates a ridiculously unnecessary amount of confusion and pseudo debates like these.

Maybe I'll just start calling people Whigs or Know-Nothings, or Democratic-Republicans and see how that works. It'd probably be the same kind of result.

The socialists just co-opted the term because it was less alarming sounding to the public

I remember when we had our secret conference in our hidden bunker and decided to start doing that.

[HolyHandgernade]

You know what's funny about that quote? It's taken way out of context. It was about the people not being able to have arms to fight the British. It's actually an anti-gun control quote. Yet, liberals ( left) and libertarians use it today against the Bush administration.

Well, first of all, could you provide the context so that I could determine just how out of context it is?

Second of all, if it is in regards to gun control, it would be interesting to see why he said it.

Third of all, just because a quote is applied to one context doesn't mean he wouldn't extend the sentiment to other liberties, especially since you didn't give the context and he didn't provide a qualifier in this quote. In Poor Richard's Almanac, he also wrote:

"Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."

Was this also in regard to gun control? It seems to me, if you have multiple sources echoing a similar sentiment, unless one can demonstrate its to the exact same context, a broader interpretation is in mind. Considering Franklin was the originators of the first philosophical society in the United States, I would say his ideals on this matter are not restricted to the issue of gun control. Of course, this is just from reading multiple sources on Franklin (being a Deist, I like reading about him). I just wish, whether the person is correct or not, they would supply the actual context when asserting something is taken out of context and therefore has no wider applicability.

-HH

[tiptap]

One reason we have a Freedom of Information Act is to get info that would otherwise remain unknown. After the Soviet Union fell, the KGB released their own files and records and our govt did have Soviet agents in it. Commies admitted it. So as far as I am concerned McCarthy was right. It was just the hysteria that go out of hand, but then there was genuine fear after what the Soviets did post WWII. And they were there much earlier...as communism ( socialism) was chic with the intellectuals in the 1930's.

It wasn't chic, it was looking for alternatives to the excesses of American Capitalism. The person who most mirrors my walk in this process in John Dos Passos. As many of his characters, there was an assumption that Communism was a representation of individual rights AND responsibilities. What was delivered by the Soviets was something else. In line with other dictatorships, the focus became the importance of the country, fatherland first. And that was over the principles democracy and protection of all under the rule of law. There would be arguments that Communism could still be redeemed into the 60's but there is no necessity for it in meeting goals of modern liberal thought. There is no call for state ownership of the means of production. There is a call for accountability to meet the necessities of the population. Democracy can seek redistribution of resources to meet those necessities.

[patteeu]

I'll stick with American idealists over American paranoids:

http://www.evolvefish.com/fish/media/S-SalazarOfficeBanner.jpg

How about this one: People who are willing to give up security for the sake of short term freedom can expect to get their asses kicked.

[HolmeZz]

How about this one: People who are willing to give up security for the sake of short term freedom can expect to get their asses kicked.

Short term freedom? Is that more fearmongering?

Yeah, scaring people into sacrificing their freedoms is not how you should run a country.

[Messier]

How about this one: People who are willing to give up security for the sake of short term freedom can expect to get their asses kicked.


Are you afraid you might lose your freedom? Who will take it from you?

[patteeu]

Short term freedom? Is that more fearmongering?

Yeah, scaring people into sacrificing their freedoms is not how you should run a country.

You won't have freedom long without security. It's as simple as that. Both are important.

[Messier]

You won't have freedom long without security. It's as simple as that. Both are important.

I don't think anyone is saying you don't need security.

[patteeu]

Are you afraid you might lose your freedom? Who will take it from you?

The growth of government and of it's reach into our lives has been chipping away at our freedoms for longer than I've been around.

[Taco John]

How about this one: People who are willing to give up security for the sake of short term freedom can expect to get their asses kicked.

Let me guess... Hitler?

[HolyHandgernade]

How about this one: People who are willing to give up security for the sake of short term freedom can expect to get their asses kicked.

I think you are absolutely right. Too often, people don't realize that other people will kill you for their own beliefs and fears and wants. I think that's absolutely true. But, responses have to be measured, otherwise people take advantage of situations in the name of security capitalizing on fear. When people sell fear to push agenda, its important to first stand up to our own fear. When fear keeps you silent, keeps you from acting, keeps you from questioning, then its not security. Show an appropriate threat when you sabatoge hrd fought for liberties. Statements like this were made by Franklin and others when the opposition was right there, in the colonies. Yet, we'll hand over our liberties at the first hint of a suprise sneak attack. Maybe I should feel differently and am just ignorant of this pressing threat greater in comparison to the colonial time with a more tangible presence, but sometimes you have to aim for both instead of seeing one as sacrificial to the other.

-HH

[Messier]

The growth of government and of it's reach into our lives has been chipping away at our freedoms for longer than I've been around.

But not like anything in the last 8 years.

[irishjayhawk]

But not like anything in the last 8 years.

QFT.

[Mr. Kotter]

But not like anything in the last 8 years.

No credible and well-versed student of history would make such a myopic statement.

[Messier]

No credible and well-versed student of history would make such a myopic statement.

Well, teach us all a thing or two.

[KILLER_CLOWN]

Mccarthy was demonized, and was a truthful and honest man.

[BucEyedPea]

It wasn't chic, it was looking for alternatives to the excesses of American Capitalism. The person who most mirrors my walk in this process in John Dos Passos. As many of his characters, there was an assumption that Communism was a representation of individual rights AND responsibilities. What was delivered by the Soviets was something else. In line with other dictatorships, the focus became the importance of the country, fatherland first. And that was over the principles democracy and protection of all under the rule of law. There would be arguments that Communism could still be redeemed into the 60's but there is no necessity for it in meeting goals of modern liberal thought. There is no call for state ownership of the means of production. There is a call for accountability to meet the necessities of the population. Democracy can seek redistribution of resources to meet those necessities.


No it was chic...amongst the intellectuals. And pluhease communism and individual rights? That's an oxymoron right there since the word commune is part it. That comes from the Latin word commune. That's all about the group being all with individuals serving it more.

You do not have to have direct state ownership to have a collectivist system. You can use indirect means such as the welfare state using transfer payments. That's what Sweden has. You can use part state ownership and part indirect. Or corporate/govt partnership model with indirect control for the collectivist good. Like a fascist system. They all paternalistic systems just like feudalism keeping the serfs safe and meeting their needs. And don't forget that the major means of production includes you and me.

"Democracy is the road to socialism." —Karl Marx.

We're " a republic, if you can keep it."—Ben Franklin

[BucEyedPea]

And I hate to break this to you, but both Bush and Kerry were liberals in the "classic" definition of the term.
I disagree completely. Kerry is a modern liberal not a classical liberal. Right libertarians are classical liberals and other small govt types or any like our Framers. And Bush well he is not any of them.

Furthermore, if someone advocates tenets of socialism, it doesn't mean that they are for communism, which is a derivative of socialism, not all encompassing.
Which is why I qualified what I said with the word "context." It is true in the context I used it since the state doesn't wither away. So they wind up in the same place.

I don't know if you are unaware of this, or you are deliberately trying to conflate the two as a red herring.
I don't think you caught the nuance I made. Again using the word "context". And in that sense I was being technical which is not how most people use it. It does not make it less valid. In fact Russia was called the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. It technically was a socialist dictatorship not communism. And that never happened to come either. Hasn't anywhere. Yet it was called a communist country. It wasn't technically.


This is your logic:

Some socialists are communists

Therefore socialism=communism.

That doesn't pass muster.
No that's a strawman. See above. Socialism and communism were used interchangeably at one time...like in the 19th century. They wind up in the same place —control of the major means of production...which is you and I.



Definitions:
Not the best for my case but for a quick find on the net it'll suffice.
2. Communism
a. A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
b. The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat. [ what I said]


Socialism
2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.[what I said]

I took Russian Studies in school and I have also studied Marx, communism and socialism and the various forms they can take. Look at the definitions and use some critical thinking with them. They wind up in the same place since true communism never comes. Except for in religious orders.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

I disagree completely. Kerry is a modern liberal not a classical liberal. Right libertarians are classical liberals and other small govt types or any like our Framers. And Bush well he is not any of them.


Which is why I qualified what I said with the word "context." It is true in the context I used it since the state doesn't wither away. So they wind up in the same place.


I don't think you caught the nuance I made. Again using the word "context". And in that sense I was being technical which is not how most people use it. It does not make it less valid.



See above. Socialism and communism were used interchangeably at one time...like in the 19th century. They wind up in the same place —control of the major means of production...which is you and I.



Definitions:
Not the best for my case but for a quick find on the net it'll suffice.
2. Communism
a. A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
b. The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat. [ what I said]


Socialism
2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.[what I said]

I took Russian Studies in school and I have also studied Marx, communism and socialism and the various forms they can take. Look at the definitions and use some critical thinking with them. They wind up in the same place since true communism never comes. Except for in religious orders.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003.


F@g once meant a bundle of sticks or a cigarette. I suggest that you stop playing fast and loose with semantics if you want anyone to respect your opinions.

Hell, you might actually learn something if you studied semiotics, or any of those communist heathen f*cks like the post-structuralists.

Furthermore, it is preposterous for anyone to make the assertion that socialism and communism are the same thing. It's an easy argument to make to the uneducated, but it holds up like a trailer in a tornado to anyone who has ever studied these systems even a minute amount.

Are the Scandinavian countries communist?

Are social anarchy, social democracy, and communism all the same? Are yellow socialism and libertarian socialism identical?

Absolutely not.

Your logic is both uninformed and reductive, and your argument is intellectually dishonest. You are trying to conflate different systems by using scare tactics because you can't make a legitimate argument about the actual mechanisms of the two systems being identical.

[BucEyedPea]

F@g once meant a bundle of sticks or a cigarette. I suggest that you stop playing fast and loose with semantics if you want anyone to respect your opinions.

Hell, you might actually learn something if you studied semiotics, or any of those communist heathen f*cks like the post-structuralists.

Furthermore, it is preposterous for anyone to make the assertion that socialism and communism are the same thing. It's an easy argument to make to the uneducated, but it holds up like a trailer in a tornado to anyone who has ever studied these systems even a minute amount.

Are the Scandinavian countries communist?

Are social anarchy, social democracy, and communism all the same? Are yellow socialism and libertarian socialism identical?

Absolutely not.

Your logic is both uninformed and reductive, and your argument is intellectually dishonest. You are trying to conflate different systems by using scare tactics because you can't make a legitimate argument about the actual mechanisms of the two systems being identical.

Well if you want to change and twist my words around to a strawman I guess you could come to that opinion. But I'm not playing fast and loose with semantics. Words have meanings and have definitions. I am just using them in the strictest sense as opposed to the popular sense.

There are different stripes of socialism too but they still hold things in common. But the 20th century communist movement as represented by the Soviet Union, using its proxies, were Marxist-Leninists. I did use that word as a more accurate term. They just implement a socialist dictatorship using violent revolution. Creeping socialism or Fabian socialism doesn't but they still move toward the same end. And it does mean control ( which is what ownership is about) of the masses for the public good in a collectivist sense.

And I am not uniformed about it.

[BucEyedPea]

Here is a link to Britannica on communism and socialism that says what I said:
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/129104/communism

Communism is thus a form of socialism—a higher and more advanced form, according to its advocates.

Like most writers of the 19th century. Marx tended to use the terms communism and socialism interchangeably.

So don't tell me about my ignorance, lack of logic or semantics. That's just projection of your own.

[irishjayhawk]

Here is a link to Britannica on communism and socialism that says what I said:
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/129104/communism





So don't tell me about my ignorance, lack of logic or semantics. That's just projection of your own.

I think he's commenting on your "anything that's not what I believe is communism/socialism/etc" attitude. Liberal views tend to get swept up there no matter how moderate they are.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Here is a link to Britannica on communism and socialism that says what I said:
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/129104/communism





So don't tell me about my ignorance, lack of logic or semantics. That's just projection of your own.

And in case you didn't notice, my first post to you said the same thing as Brittanica--a form. A derivative, but not the same thing.


Furthermore, if someone advocates tenets of socialism, it doesn't mean that they are for communism, which is a derivative of socialism, not all encompassing. I don't know if you are unaware of this, or you are deliberately trying to conflate the two as a red herring.


This is your logic:

Some socialists are communists

Therefore socialism=communism.

[Mr. Kotter]

Well, teach us all a thing or two.

Study Lincoln, and the Civil War.

Study the rise of the Judicial Review and the Imperial Presidency during the late 1800s.

Study the Presidencies of Teddy Roosevelt (my hero, FTR,) Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Eisenhower, LBJ, and Richard Nixon.

When you've done that, with all due diligence, and you can still say what you said in your earlier post....go ahead, and state it clearly with a straight face.

At which point you would officially qualify as a...well, we'll wait to see if you qualify.

:shrug:

:hmmm:

[Mr. Kotter]

And in case you didn't notice, my first post to you said the same thing as Brittanica--a form. A derivative, but not the same thing.

How many non-Western European countries have implemented socialism WITHOUT a communistic approach to governance of their country? Can you name them? And, of the Western European societies who have embraced some form of socialism....do they or do they not, each possess very unique demographic and geopolitical circumstances which make "socialism/communism-Lite" more palatable in their unique circumstances than it would be in most parts of the world???

:hmmm:


I'm just sayin'..... ;)

['Hamas' Jenkins]

How many non-Western European countries have implemented socialism WITHOUT a communistic approach to governance of their country? Can you name them? And, of the Western European societies who have embraced some form of socialism....do they or do they not, each possess very unique demographic and geopolitical circumstances which make "socialism/communism-Lite" more palatable in their unique circumstances than it would be in most parts of the world???

:hmmm:


I'm just sayin'..... ;)

On a related note, a guy asked me today to name a breed of dog that wasn't a dog.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Kotter, ultimately, social democracies have worked, and have worked quite well. If you want to take up a contention with the efficacy of socialism, do it with the Marxist dialectic, which thus far hasn't really been accurate.

Obviously, Russia went from a feudalist society to a communist state without the bourgeios -owned capitalist society in-between.

The fact that Marx was incorrect in his progression, however, does not disprove the potential of the system, only his interpretation of its evolution. Moreover, using countries again like China, Cuba, and the Soviet Union (which again all went from feudalist, agrarian societies to communist states) isn't really enough of an appropriate sample size for someone like BEP to claim that one type is axiomatically all types.

[irishjayhawk]

Kotter, ultimately, social democracies have worked, and have worked quite well. If you want to take up a contention with the efficacy of socialism, do it with the Marxist dialectic, which thus far hasn't really been accurate.

Obviously, Russia went from a feudalist society to a communist state without the bourgeios -owned capitalist society in-between.

The fact that Marx was incorrect in his progression, however, does not disprove the potential of the system, only his interpretation of its evolution. Moreover, using countries again like China, Cuba, and the Soviet Union (which again all went from feudalist, agrarian societies to communist states) isn't really enough of an appropriate sample size for someone like BEP to claim that one type is axiomatically all types.

Is it even a large enough sample size to declare communism doesn't work? Or socialism, for that matter?

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Is it even a large enough sample size to declare communism doesn't work? Or socialism, for that matter?

I don't think that any authoritarian system (Soviet communism, or the pre-Nixon Chinese version) will ever work long-term. Repressive governments have short shelf lives. However, I do believe that social democracies will eventually usurp hypercapitalist nation-states--granted it will take another global depression.

However, what I was pointing out in the previous post is not that Marx was incorrect in the endgame, but the journey towards the endgame. I think his dialectic is flawed.

[tiptap]

In arguments of systems, I usually come down on the side of strength, intelligence and leadership of the people who end up in control of the systems. If you have a "Philosopher King" that looks after the general welfare than the system's deficiencies can be minimized. If you have a militant tyrant that sees it as his domain than you get the worst of any system.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

In arguments of systems, I usually come down on the side of strength, intelligence and leadership of the people who end up in control of the systems. If you have a "Philosopher King" that looks after the general welfare than the system's deficiencies can be minimized. If you have a militant tyrant that sees it as his domain than you get the worst of any system.

Which is why we tend to favor the inefficient middle ground in the real-world interpretation of forms of Gov't and "The Republic".

[SHTSPRAYER]

If you have a "Philosopher King" that looks after the general welfare than the system's deficiencies can be minimized. If you have a militant tyrant that sees it as his domain than you get the worst of any system.

Interesting. Can you name a few Philospher King's that you admire?

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Interesting. Can you name a few Philospher King's that you admire?

Vince McMahon.

[patteeu]

I think you are absolutely right. Too often, people don't realize that other people will kill you for their own beliefs and fears and wants. I think that's absolutely true. But, responses have to be measured, otherwise people take advantage of situations in the name of security capitalizing on fear. When people sell fear to push agenda, its important to first stand up to our own fear. When fear keeps you silent, keeps you from acting, keeps you from questioning, then its not security. Show an appropriate threat when you sabatoge hrd fought for liberties. Statements like this were made by Franklin and others when the opposition was right there, in the colonies. Yet, we'll hand over our liberties at the first hint of a suprise sneak attack. Maybe I should feel differently and am just ignorant of this pressing threat greater in comparison to the colonial time with a more tangible presence, but sometimes you have to aim for both instead of seeing one as sacrificial to the other.

-HH

I agree with you up to the point where you conclude that we're handing over our liberties at the first hint of a surprise sneak attack. I certainly don't agree with everything the Bush administration has done in response to 9/11, but I don't think it's the end of liberty and I seriously doubt that we'd have had a different result on that score if Gore had been in office. The Clinton administration sought and received new freedom-diminishing, anti-terrorism laws after the Flight 800 explosion (which was officially judged to be a mechanical problem rather than terrorism) during the 90's

(1) CLINTON ADMINISTRATION, CONGRESS PROPOSE SWEEPING ANTI-TERRORISM
INITIATIVES

In the wake of the recent bombing at the Olympics and the suspected
terrorist involvement in the TWA crash, the Clinton Administration and
members of Congress are proposing a set of sweeping counter-terrorism
initiatives. If enacted into law, these proposals will dramatically
increase law enforcement surveillance authority over the Internet and other
advanced communications technologies. An outline of the Administration's
proposal was circulated on Capitol Hill on Monday July 29.

President Clinton has urged Congress to pass new counter-terrorism
legislation before the Congressional recess at the end of this week. While
several prominent Republican members of Congress, including House Speaker
Newt Gingrich (R-GA), have said publicly that Congress should not rush into
any new counter-terrorism legislation, most observers believe there is a
strong possibility that some or all of the Administration's proposal will
be enacted before the August recess.

The draft proposal contains several measures which were rejected by
Congress as part of the previous counter-terrorism initiative proposed
last year after the Oklahoma City bombing, as well as several new measures
including as-yet unspecified changes to U.S. encryption policy and funding
for the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA, a.k.a.
Digital Telephony).

more ... (http://www.cdt.org/publications/pp_2.29.html)

Like I said, I don't agree with all of the measures taken by the Bush administration after 9/11. For example, I didn't think US citizen Jose Padilla should have been treated as an illegal enemy combatant without any form of a hearing on the matter. I don't like the expansion of the sneak and peek warrants that is authorized by the Patriot Act. I much preferred the Patriot Act to be a temporary measure with a sunset clause requiring Congress to revisit it every few years. But having said all that, the threat we are facing is real and we can't just pretend it's not just because the personal danger each of us faces is minuscule.

I agree that you have to aim for both though. I don't think the Bush administration got the balance perfect, but I think most of the criticism on this score is dramatically overblown. And my greatest concern is that a President Obama will replace the offensive approach to the GWoT of the Bush administration with a defensive approach that would require even more reliance on domestic government intrusion into our private lives.

[patteeu]

But not like anything in the last 8 years.

Please. If we look at the big picture of US history, we've had a lot of liberty-violating actions on the part of the government. Do we currently have anything that compares to the Japanese-American internment camps of WWII? You should see some of the things the Unionists did in the border states during and shortly after the Civil War in an effort to put an end to the guerrilla activities that some southern sympathizers carried on. We're talking about the ideological equivalent of ethnic cleansing, theft as confiscation, and even outright murder.

And when we look at the things the Bush administration is being criticized over, we find that many of them are just expansions of law enforcement or intelligence techniques pioneered by predecessors whether it be things like sneak and peek warrants or extraordinary rendition.

The last 8 years have been notable, but then notable things often happen when you go to war and, in any event, they haven't been off-the-chart notable.

[BucEyedPea]

Which is why we tend to favor the inefficient middle ground in the real-world interpretation of forms of Gov't and "The Republic".

"We?" Tiptap and you are far from the middle-ground. The middle ground gave way in the 1930s and it was creeping away even before that. You're both to the left of that. Besides how is your own self-avowed politics of "anarcho-socialism" the middle ground?