The Communist Threat
June 28th, 2006 | by Dr. Forbush |When I grew up in the middle of the Cold War the fear of nuclear war came to mind from time to time. This was mainly because the Soviet Union and the United States had so many nuclear weapons that they could destroy each other, and the innocent bystanders many times over. The “many times over” phrase was always puzzling. Actually the motivation itself was puzzling.
I tried many times to understand why two countries would like to destroy each other and the world, civilization as we know it rather than let the other side “win.” Something was so important that civilization could not go on with the “other side” surviving.
One time I asked my dad what the Soviet Union would do that was so bad that it would be worth living. Of course my dad tried to explain the horrors of living under the rule of the Soviet Union. “For example, he said, you would not be able to have a car that you liked. Instead, everyone in the country would have exactly the same kind of car. And, it would be black!” Oh, horrors, I could never be seen in a BLACK car.
Obviously, my dad didn’t know that very few people in the Soviet Union had a black car, and they were in the Communist Party. I was young and I was trying to understand the world. Surely people wouldn’t want to destroy the Soviet Union, and risk being destroyed ourselves because they might make us all drive around in black cars.
Some time later I pointed out to my dad that there was inherent unfairness in the American economic system. Some people down the street had a boat and went water skiing every weekend in the summer, and they went snow skiing every weekend in the winter. We were lucky to get a steak on Sundays. I pointed out that some people who lived in the poor section of town would pull a knife on you if you looked like you might be carrying cash. Why would they risk being put in jail just to get a few bucks for a six pack of beer? I pointed out that there were plenty of things that needed to be repaired in their area of town, and if we just paid them to fix up their section of town they would have their money for their beer and they would be living in a nicer section of town. Of course, my dad told me I was talking like a Communist. And this made me wonder once again, what is so wrong about helping the poor that our country would risk nuclear war and the destruction of the planet?
Well, I was listening to an old time radio program from the 1950s. The show was called, “I Was a Communist for the FBI.” It was about a guy who went under cover to infiltrate the Communists in America so they couldn’t spread their evil Communism around our county. In one episode they portrayed the Communists simply as anti-American. One plan was to use a Red Cross blood drive to recruit new members to the Communist Party. But, the Communists were against the Red Cross, and therefore they could not help the Red Cross because of principle alone. So, after the blood was collected they needed to find a way to destroy the blood so the Red Cross couldn’t use it. They came up with an elaborate plan to hijack the blood truck. Of course, the guy working as an under cover agent was caught in the moral dilemma between blowing his cover and destroying the blood. But was it really worth destroying the world in order to prevent the Communists from destroying the Red Cross? And, was the Red Cross really working against the principles of Communism where the goal was merely to redistribute the wealth?
Then I was thinking about the old cry of “Godless Communist.” I actually thought of this when Ann Coulter brought up the accusation of liberals being “Godless.” Was the Cold War really a religious war? Obviously America wouldn’t wage a purely religious war, but maybe the threat of the Communists was two-fold. Maybe the wealthy didn’t like the idea of redistribution of wealth, and the religious thought that they were fighting the Godless Communists. Maybe this is why the coalition of the Right Wing Extremists has become so strong after the fall of Communism. They no longer have the evil Communists, so they redirected their hatred toward the godless liberals that offer the same fear factor. Like anything else this was just an insight into our world that doesn’t really make much sense on the surface.
But, I am not the only one thinking along these lines. The other day I was listening to a political talk show. An expert on Middle East strategy was explaining how the threat of Islamic Fascism grew during the Cold War. She said that we supported them in Afghanistan and in Saudi Arabia and around the world. I knew that we had supported the insurgents in Afghanistan, because they were fighting the Soviets. But, as the speaker told us, I didn’t know that we supported these religious sects around the world because they had religion, not like those Godless Communists. Apparently, during the 1950s and 1960s the United States had calculated that religion was better than Communism, so we sent money top these groups in any country that we feared might fall to the Godless Communists. And since we feared Communism in just about any country we might have been sending money to these groups in Italy and Germany as well.
But, now it finally makes sense. The Cold War was a religious war and it brought the extreme religious conservatives in the US into a tight union with the wealthy. It was worth risking the entire world in a nuclear battle, because it was about religion, which covers both life and death. And, the victory in the Cold War freed up the imagination of these people to attack the liberals in the United States with the same anti-Communist rhetoric. And groups of people who are willing to risk nuclear war that could destroy the world certainly are dangerous, and even worse when you are their enemy.
It is about time that this country takes the risk of the Religious Conservative Threat seriously.
—————————————————–
Don’t forget what Stephen Colbert said, “Reality has a well-known liberal bias.”
Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit
26 Responses to “The Communist Threat”
By Liberal Jarhead on Jun 27, 2006 | Reply
I hit a bump when I got to where you wrote “Obviously America wouldn’t wage a purely religious war”, but I concur that when you consider that the actions of America have been chosen by a non-representative minority who would indeed wage faith-based war, we sure would.
By Demon Princess on Jun 28, 2006 | Reply
And did.
By Paul Merda on Jun 28, 2006 | Reply
and are…
Yes, the Right Wing Christians in this country are my mortal enemy. It appears I will be “in the trenches” for a long time though, their numbers grow too fast. But I will resist the Christofascists as much as possible….
By liberal vet on Jun 28, 2006 | Reply
Dr. Forbush,
Fundies everywhere would have you and I locked up and indoctrinated until you recognized the one true god. They would then be glad to put a weapon in your hands and march you off to a foreign land to be shot and killed. Why? Because they believe in the end of the world as we know it. It is then and only then that these fanatics will receive there just reward. I agree with Paul these so called christians are our mortal enemies.
How do we stop them? Is voting sufficient to cease there endless assault on our liberties. First thing we must do as a nation is wake up. We must assure equal opportunity to cast our votes. No one should stand in line 12 hours and then have the pols closed. Communists were never our enemies. Hell Russia lost more people than anyone else in WWII. They fought the nazis bravely and sacrificed much. Socilaism is a good thing. It would mean all citizens would have equal access to health care and adequate housing and a living wage. Why is Marx made to look like the reincarnation of Satan? Because he offered an alternative to the greedy corporations who were killing the workers? So christians and republican fanatics demonize socialism.
And Doc I have long recognized the detrimental effects of organized religion, thanks for the provocative article, I am sure it may cause some problems with the right at bio. LV
By Craig R. Harmon on Jun 28, 2006 | Reply
Two words, Dr.: Ayn Rand. She’ll take care of all those warm and fuzzy feelings for collectivism for you.
By liberal vet on Jun 28, 2006 | Reply
Collectivism on a limited scale is called taking care of your citizens. Starving people denying them health care and failing to care for there children inside and outside the womb is called abuse. Let me ask you a question Craig do you support the institution of universal health care. Do you think people should have a living wage. Or do you support congress refusing to increase the minimum wage to a paltry amount while they averaged 31,000 per year increase in salary for the past nine years or there abouts. LV
By Dr. Forbush on Jun 28, 2006 | Reply
Craig,
I liked “The Fountainhead.” So, I thought I might like some of her other books. “Anthem” was one of the worst books I’ve ever read. It was trite, formless and unimaginative. The only book that I have read that was worse was a SciFi book about a group of guys that went to a planet to kill “Big Game.” Obviously the book wasn’t really scifi, but an African Game hunt book in disguise. “Anthem” is exactly the same thing. It is preaching in the disguise of a story.
By Liberal Thinker on Jun 28, 2006 | Reply
Ayn Rand is a hack. She is unoriginal and illogical. Her philosophy, which really doesn’t deserve the title, is purely a knee-jerk reaction to the twisted communism of Stalin that she experienced. Her theories prey on the bigotry of people. In my experience people don’t understand the full implications of her theories or have never read the works of those she argues against.
I will admit I have not read much by Ayn Rand. I have not read “The Fountainhead”. My experience of her is through reading some of her philosophical essays and the analysis and explanation of her theories put out by The Ayn Rand society. None of that reading I have done struck me as anything more than second rate philosophy.
By Craig R. Harmon on Jun 28, 2006 | Reply
Dr.,
I agree. People who really like novels probably should avoid Rand’s novels, although “We the Living”, shorter fiction, wasn’t bad. Atlas Shrugged is almost, at places, simply unreadable. She has a section, about 45 pages long, of a philosophical monologe in the voice of the one of the main protagonists. Honestly, it could put a person into a coma. Taking that section out and publishing it as a treatice in her own voice would have done two things: it would have immediately improved the novel and it would have been manageable, with some editing, as a stand-alone document, manifesto really. Anyway, none of her characters in either of her novels is in the slightest bit likeable.
However, they and several other books, are able takedowns of collectivism and defenses of capitalism. She’s too laissez-faire for me but she sold me on capitalism.
In any case, I don’t recommend any of her fiction qua literature. Rather, I recommend almost any of her works, and particularly her overtly philosophical non-fiction as an antidote to collectivism on a national level.
Liberal Vet,
I am extremely skeptical of state welfare. This is something that governments do not do well and, when they try, they mess up a lot of lives, invite fraud on massive scales and waste billions of dollars on it. There are things that national governments do fairly well and that, really, cannot be done except on the federal level: common defense, for example, international relations and treaties and law enforcement and judicial review, among others.
I am not knee-jerk against universal health care, although I’m not knowledgeable enough about the issues to be able to evaluate what would be good or bad plans. I’ve heard good things about the state program, Massachusetts I believe it was, that was recently proposed and, maybe, passed. I’ve heard good things about it even from Conservative commentators.
Minimum wage? Again, I’ve heard pros and cons. As a purely mental exercize, I would say that it would lead to fewer low-end jobs and to a slowing of the economy. On the other hand, I’ve read those who say that, in practice, neither of those things occur. Call me ‘not yet convinced one way or another’ on the issue but if Congress thinks that paying themselves more and more over the same period of time that the minimum wage has remained flat, then it would seem to me that they would think that it would be at least as good an idea for the lowest wage earners to earn more.
Child protection is, unfortunately, a job that governments seem to not do a very good job at, even when case workers are really very consciencious and caring, yet it is a job that can’t really be done much at all by anyone else but governments.
By Liberal Thinker on Jun 28, 2006 | Reply
Craig, I personally find it difficult to reconcile Rand’s laissez-faire capitalism with the economic system that currently exists. She argues that ANYTHING short of laissez-faire and anything resembling socialist or collectivist principles is not only immoral but will fail. History has shown us that laissez-faire is an unrealistic economic principle. Every nation has some socialist principles. It must or the nation would fall upon itself. I find it much easier to reconcile Marx’s writtings with what we have today. Marx called for a revolution but he was living at a time when there were 2 classes. Today we have 3, we have 3 because of a) the type of jobs that exist and b) because of the socialist principles that exist. I think If Marx lived today he would call for a gradual escalation of socialist principles. Marx’s ultimate goal is probably unrealizable and has never been tried (Lenin’s Russia was a twisting of Marx and thus should not be labeled a failure of Marxism but of Leninist-marism.) but he has many things to teach us and I think most people who read Marx learn much from him. If you haven’t read Marx’s Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844 I HIGHLY recomend them.
By Craig R. Harmon on Jun 28, 2006 | Reply
Liberal Thinker,
I don’t know enough about Objectivism to speak about it as a comprehensive philosophy. As I recall, it begins from the self-evident assertion A is A which, it seems to me, is a pretty good place to start but I haven’t made anything like a comprehensive study of Objectivism or tried to evaluate it logically or even as a conversation with other philosophers.
Clearly, she is reacting to Russian Communism. It may not be representative of every Communist society but, really, which Communist society would you point to as an example of how it should be done? China? Cuba? Vietnam? etc? I’ve pretty much concluded that whatever Communism can look like on paper, it never works out as anything that I would like to live under and so I think Communism is a good idea that simply is not implimentable by human beings, given what human nature is.
By Craig R. Harmon on Jun 28, 2006 | Reply
Liberal Thinker,
That last was speaking to your first comment. Now to your second. Yes, I agree, she’s too laissez-faire to me. If Marx is right, the people will revolt, storm the capital, and implement Socialism and then evolve into Communism just as surely as moths evolve into having darker coloration in heavily polluted cities to blend into their backgrounds. Frankly, I think it’s bunk and to be resisted at all costs. I’ve simply not seen anything like a workable Communistic system that hasn’t been oppressive. As for Socialism, which society exactly do you recommend as a pattern? I haven’t seen any that I’d prefer to Capitalsm. Markets work. Corporations need oversight and, particularly, heavy penalties for misbehavior to prevent Enrons, for example. But markets work and price controls distort economies and too heavy regulations and taxes simply drive corporations elsewhere. About that, Rand was right, it seems to me.
By Liberal Thinker on Jun 28, 2006 | Reply
I wouldn’t point to any. They all got Marx wrong. If you want to argue against communism as it exists in the nations around the world I’m all for it. I don’t think true Marxism could ever exist on anything short of a world order (hence why it is so damn improbable). So, any nation that attempts to create Marxist-communism is going to fail. However, she argues against socialism and collectivism. When she does so she has Marx specifically in mind. My point is that every nation has socialism in some form becuase it needs it. Marx highlights what are the natural by-products of capitalism. They are all things major nations today have sought through social methods to fix. My point is not that total marxism or total collectivism is the right move but that some socialist principles and institutions are absolutely necessary and Ayn Rand misses that in her work.
You may not trust government to handle some programs which I can agree on. Government sometimes is not able to handle certain programs as well as it should. But you can never succeed if you never try. And there are plenty of programs that government does well, perhaps not perfectly, but better than private industry (since private industry doesn’t do it itself.) For example, work place safety. If left to industry they would never improve work place safety for its employees because they can always find someone willing to do the job under those conditions. So, if you support laws to protect the rights of works because capitalist industry seeks to destroy those rights and take advantage of the poverty of its workers….then you support one of the fundamental principles of Marx’s teachings. I know Ayn Rand disagrees and believes that it is moral for business to prey upon the employee because she believes in the myth that the worker has the ability to one day become the owner. I think we can all agree that that is a myth and the worker, if left to industry will never escape his wage slave status. The myth of “pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps” is only perpetuated because of the unseen collectivist elements at work in current society. (Social Security, Welfare, Medicare…. are only the big ones, the most obvious ones but there are plenty of others.)
By Craig R. Harmon on Jun 28, 2006 | Reply
Well, I think we both agree that Rand is not the be all and end all. As for Marx, I am even more ignorant of him than I am of Rand. My critique of him is no more complex or nuanced than: if he’s right, there’s nothing we can do to stop it and Capitalism will fall and to judge from the real world attempts to implement his notions, I’d rather not live in the world that would result. I don’t pretend that it’s fair to Marx. It can’t be. I’m not familiar enough with his ideas to be fair to him. He’s just never inspired in me a desire to really get to know his thinking.
By liberal vet on Jun 28, 2006 | Reply
Craig I would agree the government does a piss poor job of oversite regarding social welfare. I also believe the number of staff required to monitor potential abusers of children is inadequate and needs to be increased. Regarding universal health care when people are overwhelming ER’s with primary care it negates an ER’s ability to treat those most in need, tha is why so many ER’s are closing there doors, or opening urgent care units. I was in charge of a psychiatric ER for years and know first hand how desperate people become without treatment.
The bottom line is Gates and Buffet can not do it alone. We need a heavy dose of philanthropy to see to it our children are protected. Impoverished neighborhoods are a breeding ground for drug dealers and criminals. The children are the ones who suffer most and slip through the cracks. Government Officials make too much money. A third party alternative would be nice, unfortunately I consider this a distant hope. Thanks for your thoughtful response. LV
By Liberal Thinker on Jun 28, 2006 | Reply
Socialism exists in EVERY major nation today INCLUDING THE US. US, Canada, England, France, Germany, Russia, Italy, Spain, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand are all socialist-capitalist. Show me a capitalist system in the world that has not trampled on its poorest citizens.
We seem to agree that Laissez-faire and true communism go too far. However, I think you miss that what we have today is not capitalism but a fusion of capitalist and socialist values. it is not a pure economic system. All pure economic systems ignore the human element.
Marx argued against Laissez-faire capitalism. Ayn Rand argued against both Communism AND the capitalis-socialist system we have today. If you ignore Marx’s ideas of revolution and inevitability (not too much of a step given that this part of his threory is prescription not description like the rest of his theory). Rand’s theory where descriptive has been shown wrong and where prescriptive is impossible or will lead to the enslavement of the lower class and the abolition of the middle class. Marx’s descriptive theories give us multiple courses of action, if he were alive today he would, I think, argue differently from what he did when he was alive. He wrote during a time when revolutions were common and nearly the only means of government reform. That is not true today and he lived during a time that if not laissez-faire was as close as possible. Today we are much further from laissez-faire and revolution. My point is Marx is more reconcilable than Rand when it comes to our current system.
By Liberal Thinker on Jun 28, 2006 | Reply
Sorry should read: If you ignore Marx’s ideas of revolution and inevitability (not too much of a step given that this part of his threory is prescription not description like the rest of his theory) there is much that we can learn from him about the way capitalism works and the ways we need to change it to make it better ( as many have in ways that Marx appproves).
By Craig R. Harmon on Jun 28, 2006 | Reply
Liberal Vet,
You’re welcome. If I were really really smart, I could probably solve these problems. Unfortunately, I’m just about smart enough to know that I haven’t got an answer to most of the problems that we face. I know bad solutions when I see them, well, usually anyway but good solutions are few and far between.
By Craig R. Harmon on Jun 28, 2006 | Reply
Liberal Thinker,
Yes, there are no randian utopias and such utopias would be as unworkable as the communist utopias have been. There is socialist aspects to every capitalistic societies. My problem is that the more socialist the society, the worse the economy works. Take France: high chronic unemployment — why work when the government will pay you not to and corporations cannot fire their workers who enjoy something like tenure at Universities. Who’s going to expand their hiring when it is so difficult to adjust their employment numbers to market fluctuations and who wants to take a chance on hiring new workers that may prove to be poor workers that cannot be let go? The more the state steps in to regulate industry, the further south the economy goes. To my eyes, socialism is progressively destructive. I agree that a certain level of such interference is necessary but, to me, less is more when it comes to socialism.
By ken grandlund on Jun 28, 2006 | Reply
Interesting how an analogy between the ‘communist threat’ of yesterday and today’s religious zealotry has turned into a discourse on comparative economic theories, As I say, it’s been interesting to follow. I could continue along this with my own thoughts, or direct my comment to the post at hand, which is what I will choose to do.
To me, the point of this post was to draw a connection between the ‘enemy’ of yesterday and ‘the enemy’ of today and how the conservative wing of American politics paints them all in the same light in an effort to roust the troops, so to speak. In this sense, the good Doc is on to something that I think we viscerally understand without putting bright lipstick all over it. It is a classic ‘bait, smear, associate with the worst people’ kind of tactic that works best on those who only pay attention peripherally. Sadly, that is most of the general public.
It’s time to stop letting people (politicians and pundits) get away with such simplistic associations that are not true. If the american people have a collective enemy (aside fromthe terrorist factions who would just as soon see us dead) it is the politicians, pundits, and corporate donors ON BOTH SIDES OF THE FENCE who insist on treating us as simpletons while they slowly bend us over and insert the red hot poker time and time again.
By Craig R. Harmon on Jun 28, 2006 | Reply
Liberal Vet,
Who are these fundies that want to lock you up and indoctrinate you. I’ve known a number of fundamentalist Christians. I’ve never known anyone that wants to lock non-Christians up and indoctrinate them.
By Dr. Forbush on Jun 28, 2006 | Reply
Craig,
I’m sure that liberal vet meant that as a metaphor for the freedom that the Christian Right wants to take from the rest of us. The Christians have never been the friend of freedom, from book burning to the control of the media. They would like to pass laws that restrict freedoms that non-Christians believe that is part of being an American. Non-Christians realize that people should have the right to choose to drink, to not go to church, to love anyone they choose to love. Christians believe that they know what the restrictions should be and they want to write those restrictions into the government’s law and force people to obey those laws. And, that restriction of freedom is the same as locking us up.
By Craig R. Harmon on Jun 28, 2006 | Reply
Dr.,
Okay, I can see that. Sometimes I have been accused of being overly literalistic. :^)
By Dr. Forbush on Jun 28, 2006 | Reply
Craig,
Did someone steal your user ID, you seem to be a different person than the one I had discussions with a while back? I don’t think that I’ve been the one to mellow… :-}
By Craig R. Harmon on Jun 28, 2006 | Reply
Dr.,
No, it’s still me. Perhaps I’m in my mellow biofeedback period. There are Christians that have done and do want to do the things that you describe. Sometimes I’m just wrong. I find it helpful if I recognize when I am and simply admit it. That’s not always the way it happens. I can be pretty bull-headed…or so my wife tells me. I actually wrote several contrarian continuances but luckily I thought about and rejected each. If that’s what LV meant, and that’s a reasonable conclusion, then I have no particular bone to pick with it.
By liberal vet on Jun 29, 2006 | Reply
What I meant and will attempt to clarify is this. Extremism breeds control. When this control interferes with my ability to exercise my own free will I object. Religion in its extreme is dangerous. Persons who believe they can control others behavior with laws are just ignorant. If abortion were banned women would just seek back alley treatments and endanger their lives. I also believe our prisons are breeding grounds for criminality. Drugs, just like alcahol, should be regulated and treated as a social problem. As far as Ken’s comment he is correct. I for one believe history repeats itself, it seems the US under certain administration has to have an enemy be they communist or fanatics such as theTalliban and Al Quaida. LV