Was Lucille Ball a Communist?

[Jim B.]

On television, oh, quite some time back, I was watching this news show about Lucille Ball. Apparently a relative was very enthused about Communism. And as a sort of tribute to him, Lucille Ball declared herself to be a Communist. Okay, I got that part of the story. My question is this: Where did Ball stand politically, particularly most of her life, and shortly before she died too? Was she very liberal? Was she indeed sympathetic to the principles of the Communist party?

Thank you in advance to all who reply :)

[elucidator]

Now, at last, a debate with some substance! Probably be crushed beneath the hob-nailed jackboots of the Moderatti...

Short answer: no. Longer answer: there was a time when Communists had some respectability in American political circles. Since that time, the history has been re-written, but it was once entirely possible to be a patriotic American and a Communist. That's a true fact, you could look it up. Of course, you could have looked up the whole question, for that matter.

[Johnny L.A.]

Her hair was Red.

[alphaboi867]

She registered to vote as a member of the Communist Party in the 1930s to please her grandfather. As Desi said "The only thing red about Lucy is her hair and even that's not legitimate!".

[samclem]

She perhaps registered to vote as a communist in 1936. So, when the wHUACkos came into fashion in the early '50s', dragging people in to answer charges that they might be un-a-merkin, she was on the list. But she was probably so popular, she was not seriously in jeopardy.

[Loach]

Now, at last, a debate with some substance! Probably be crushed beneath the hob-nailed jackboots of the Moderatti...

Short answer: no. Longer answer: there was a time when Communists had some respectability in American political circles. Since that time, the history has been re-written, but it was once entirely possible to be a patriotic American and a Communist. That's a true fact, you could look it up. Of course, you could have looked up the whole question, for that matter.

Of course that is not actually the answer.

[Full Metal Lotus]

I don't have any cites for this, but in the last 20 yrs or so of her life she was good friends with John wayne, and expressed strong anti Castro feelings. Probably one of the more right wing of the Hollywood set.

But in a wacky funny way, of course.....

regards
FML

[Rigamarole]

Her hair was Red.

Ah-HA! Now I think we're really onto something.

[samclem]

After Lucy was cleared by the committee, Desi offered this to the press Her husband and costar, Desi Arnaz, signed an eight-million dollar contract this year to produce the program 2 1/2 mor years.
Arnaz said, "Lucy has always had a clear conscience about this. She has never been a Communist and what's more she hates every Communist in Hollywood.". Whether he was merely covering their ass or Lucy actually felt that way, I have no way of knowing.

*OT--He got Eight million dollars to produce the show for 2 1/2 years. Wowzer.

[Fear Itself]

Of course that is not actually the answer.We're waiting...

[Mr. Moto]

After Lucy was cleared by the committee, Desi offered this to the press . Whether he was merely covering their ass or Lucy actually felt that way, I have no way of knowing.

*OT--He got Eight million dollars to produce the show for 2 1/2 years. Wowzer.

I believe this was the seed money that allowed Desilu to buy the RKO Hollywood soundstages and the Culver City backlot. This gave them the room to make many of the shows of TV's Golden Age.

The notion to do this, incidentally, was all Arnaz's

[Loach]

We're waiting...

Took me all of 10 seconds to find the answer. Her grandfather was Fred C. Hunt. He helped raise her after her father died. He is described as "an eccentric socialist". She was very close to her grandfather. He wanted her to register to vote as a communist and she did for the 1936 election out of respect for him. There is no proof that she was ever an active communist, agreed with communism or ever voted for a communist candidate. There was a brief uproar over this in the 50s but it died down when the truth was told and it was obvious the she wasn't a communist. It's in wiki and other places. Just type in "Lucille" "Ball" and "communist" into your search engine.

[Bobotheoptimist]

Her hair was Red.Ah-HA! Now I think we're really onto something.
Well you've heard about the agents that we've already named
Well MPA has agents that are flauntedly unashamed
We're after Rosie Clooney, we've gotten Pinkie Lee
And the day we get Red Skelton won't that be a victory

[samclem]

Well you've heard about the agents that we've already named
Well MPA has agents that are flauntedly unashamed
We're after Rosie Clooney, we've gotten Pinkie Lee
And the day we get Red Skelton won't that be a victory It's got a beat. I could dance to it.

Where did you steal it from?

[Fear Itself]

Just type in "Lucille" "Ball" and "communist" into your search engine.Oh, I believe you. I just don't see how your answer contradicts 'luci's. Both can be true.

[Musicat]

Where did you steal it from?
http://sniff.numachi.com/pages/tiJONBIRCH.html

Note: this is a Chad Mitchell Trio song.

[Loach]

Oh, I believe you. I just don't see how your answer contradicts 'luci's. Both can be true.

Mine answered the OP, his didn't even try to.

[Bobotheoptimist]

Note: this is a Chad Mitchell Trio song.Er, yeah. My warped upbringing caused be to believe Chad Mitchell is as well known as the Beatles. I worried more than a few neighbors (and annoyed one sister) by singing The John Birch Society frequently.

[Captain Amazing]

So, when the wHUACkos came into fashion in the early '50s'. . .

Just for the record, HUAC's heyday was probably in the 40s. That's when you had the Hollywood 10 and all that.

[Mr. Moto]

Just for the record, HUAC's heyday was probably in the 40s. That's when you had the Hollywood 10 and all that.

Not to mention the Hiss case.

[Bryan Ekers]

Mine answered the OP, his didn't even try to.

Indeed, elucidator's answer didn't really elucidate anything.


'luci.... you got some 'splainin' to do.....!

[elucidator]

I don't hate Lucille Ball because she was, or was not, a Communist.

'luci.... you got some 'splainin' to do.....!

This is why I hate Lucille Ball!

[tomndebb]

Because she had a name that became part of a popular expression, not merely prior to your choosing your own username (fully aware of how it could be nicknamed), but probably before you were born?
Talk about a grudge. :p

[Cervaise]

Mine answered the OP, his didn't even try to.Here's a medal.

[Loach]

Here's a medal.

I wasn't asking for one. I was answering a question. Any reason for the driveby assholery?

[elucidator]

Because she had a name that became part of a popular expression, not merely prior to your choosing your own username (fully aware of how it could be nicknamed), but probably before you were born?

Ah, no, her TV show became popular in the early 50's and I....well, let's put it this way, I still meet cute young hotties, but now they call me "Sir".

[elucidator]

(deleted for oopsy!)

[Loach]

(deleted for oopsy!)

That happens when you get old.

[elucidator]

What? Did something happen? Get off my lawn!

[Mr. Moto]

Short answer: no. Longer answer: there was a time when Communists had some respectability in American political circles. Since that time, the history has been re-written, but it was once entirely possible to be a patriotic American and a Communist. That's a true fact, you could look it up.

This may send the thread in an entirely new direction, but I think this needs to be explored further.

elucidator, I am well aware of your distaste for McCatrthyism. But I think your anti-anticommunism has, like so many others' anti-anticommunism, made you quite blind to the real dangers of Communism.

The American Communist Party was controlled and financed by Moscow, and if things had gone any differently and the Soviet Union had come out on top, Gus Hall wouldn't be remembered as a historical footnote - he would be remembered as basically the American Stalin. The experience of Earl Browder proved this - when he tried to distance the party from Moscow, he was promptly expelled from it and ostracized by leftists for the rest of his life.

Perhaps it is true that some patriotic Americans were momentarily seduced by Communism, but that does not change the fact that Communism was fundamentally hostile to and incompatible with American patriotism, and that the leadership of the Communist Party in America were not patriotic in any sense.

Given all of this, I don't know why you can claim that it was once entirely possible to be a patriotic American and a Communist. Again, I think perhaps that sort of thing could happen for a time, like a devout Catholic mulling over atheism, or a Sunday school teacher just sitting in the parlor of the brothel to listen to the piano music. Eventually, though, these sorts of things really are incompatible with each other, and you really ought to face it.

[Liberal]

I believe I saw Luc recently denounce communism at least mildly and in passing, likening it to objectivism or something.

[dropzone]

I believe I saw Luc recently denounce communism at least mildly and in passing, likening it to objectivism or something.Liberal, I am well aware of your distaste for Ayn Rand.* But I think your anti-objectivism has, like so many others' anti-antiobjectivism, made you quite blind to the real dangers of objectivism.

The American Republican Party was controlled and financed by Neocons, and if things had gone any differently and the Republicans had come out on top, Ronald Reagan wouldn't be remembered as a historical footnote - he would be remembered as basically the American John Galt. ;)


* - Or was that MY distaste for Ayn Rand?

[Mr. Moto]

I'm not saying 'luci is in favor of Communism here, just that he is a bit blind to its dangers. Just that he hates McCarthy and merely shakes his head at Gus Hall.

If the Communists had won, a guy like elucidator would have been the first resident of the camps.

[Liberal]

Or was that MY distaste for Ayn Rand?Possibly. It's Binswanger that I have a real problem with.

[BrainGlutton]

deleted

[elucidator]

There are no innocent political parties, Moto. I do not place the American Communist party on a pedestal, I am fully aware of thier shortcomings. The only corrective I would urge is that they were not all shortcomings. The Communists were on the forefront of the movement for racial equality long before it was respectable to the mainstream. Radicals are not beholden, they can scold us without worrying about respectability.

It is true that for a long time, American Communists were controlled by Moscow, but this was part and parcel of the Party line: unity was crucial, even if it involved sacrifice. If you read the stories of American lefties of the time, most will point to the Stalin-Hitler pact as the breaking point. Rightly so, in my estimation. And one should remember that it was a commonly held belief that a moral person was forced to an unpleasant choice: Stalinist Communism or Hitlerian Facism. It is not a choice I should like to be forced to, and I cannot judge anyone who made it.

And Gus Hall as Stalin? Please. It was a common joke in leftist cirlces that the Communist Party USA would have gone broke had it not been for the dues-paying FBI agents. The New Deal deeply undercut American Communism, nothing destroys a revolution like hope, if that hope is not dependent on revolution.

Lib is quite right, I have no interest in Communism, I don't trust any academic excercise in political science, it is abstract, actual human interaction is much more messy and ill-defined. The notion that History is a force that can be predicted and relied upon is sillier than any theology. History is creative and chaotic, its only after the dust settles that we study it and discover that, yes, indeed, it was inevitable, couldn't have happened any other way but that which suits our biases.

Communism as she is practiced in dull, grey, and dreary. Consumerist capitalism, based on the production and distribution of loud, shiny crap is better. But it isn't enough. We are not done, and the future beckons.

[BrainGlutton]

If the Communists had won, a guy like elucidator would have been the first resident of the camps.

If they had won a revolution, maybe. (See this (http://www.amazon.com/Back-Ussa-Eugene-Byrne/dp/0929480848/ref=pd_bbs_2/102-0323301-0796122?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1182794818&sr=1-2) alternate-history novel.) If they had won the WH and Congress by lawful elections . . . no, no camps.

[Fear Itself]

If the Communists had won, a guy like elucidator would have been the first resident of the camps.That seems to be an admission that despite the overwhelming superiority of capitalism and the free market, it is conceivable that communism could have become the dominant economic system in the world today. How is that possible? Is capitalism not all it is cracked up to be? Knowing what we know today, wasn't the fall of Communism inevitable?

[Mr. Moto]

The Communists were on the forefront of the movement for racial equality long before it was respectable to the mainstream. Radicals are not beholden, they can scold us without worrying about respectability.

First of all, when we all are on our knees, we are roughly the same height. So the equality they were preaching wasn't a very sound commodity.

Secondly, you are well aware of the grossest forms of discrimination practices by actual Communists in places like the Soviet Union and China, so you are aware that these nice attitudes probably would not have made nice policy.

Glad to see you weren't so deluded as I may have believed. But I still think you may give the Communists far too much benefit of doubt.

[Mr. Moto]

That seems to be an admission that despite the overwhelming superiority of capitalism and the free market, it is conceivable that communism could have become the dominant economic system in the world today. How is that possible? Is capitalism not all it is cracked up to be? Knowing what we know today, wasn't the fall of Communism inevitable?

Well, who knows. Our victory in WWII wasn't preordained. Nor was the survival of our allies. And the Soviets could well have become a nuclear power before us - especially with the help of captured German scientists.

Moreover, the Nationalist Chinese held on as long as they did only because they were getting massive amounts of help - from the Red Army. If Stalin had helped Mao instead of Chiang Kai-shek, he would have likely had Red China much sooner - and one that was an ally and not a rival.

[elucidator]

... And the Soviets could well have become a nuclear power before us - especially with the help of captured German scientists...

In the early days of WWII, FDR was flooded with crackpot schemes for super weapons, some from heavy hitting politicos he was compelled to pretend some interest in. Not being a technical person (by any stretch) he had no good basis for judgement. (You may recall the famous "bat bombs"...)

Anyway, when he recieved Einstein's letter about the possibility of an atomic bomb, he dismissed it out of hand, just another crazy scheme. But by sheer chance, a few days later, he was reviewing some intelligence reports, and came upon the minor fact that the Germans had embargoed all exports of uranium from Czechoslovakia. And the light bulb went on....

[Krokodil]

I remember an interview with Lucie Arnaz about this in the early 90s. She said that in 1930, being a Communist was "like being for Ross Perot today."

[elucidator]

... But I still think you may give the Communists far too much benefit of doubt.
Its a good bet that you're not gonna! Damn, Moto, these people weren't monsters hatched from eggs, they are people who came to conclusions and commitments different from yours (or mine, for that matter). Have you never met any red-blooded, flag waving, all American radical lefties?

Surely you don't imagine I love my country less than you! Than why would you be so sure that they did? Whom would you prefer? Someone who tries do right, but chose wrong, or someone who just sticks his hands in his pockets and watches it all go by?

[Mr. Moto]

Its a good bet that you're not gonna! Damn, Moto, these people weren't monsters hatched from eggs, they are people who came to conclusions and commitments different from yours (or mine, for that matter). Have you never met any red-blooded, flag waving, all American radical lefties?

Sure.

Surely you don't imagine I love my country less than you! Than why would you be so sure that they did? Whom would you prefer? Someone who tries do right, but chose wrong, or someone who just sticks his hands in his pockets and watches it all go by?

Thought experiment, please.

If an ex-Klansman were to run for office, I think we'd have to ask some pretty pointed questions of that individual, wouldn't we? Wouldn't we have to ask whether that person was still a Klansman? Whether they were still a racist? Whether they had ever lynched anyone? How much money they gave the Klan? How much they got from them? How high in the organization they were?

Unsatisfactory answers, especially now that we know the horrific nature of the Klan, would make this person a permanent outcast in American civic life, and rightfully so.

Now, since we know that Communism isn't exactly an innocent ideology, and since we now understand that it is incompatible with American patriotism in much the same way as being in the Klan is incompatible with, well that same patriotism, why wouldn't the same pointed questions apply there as well.

There is a big difference between the patriotic left and the Communist Party USA, isn't there? And while I'm sure the distinctions could be blurry at times (especially since the CPUSA liked to muddy the waters and subvert any honest organization it could find) there is no question at all about the Communist Party itself.

[panache45]

Her hair was Red.
I never believed that for a minute. To me, it just looked like shades of gray.

[elucidator]

....There is a big difference between the patriotic left and the Communist Party USA, isn't there?...
Sure, there is, now! But the past is a different country, they do things differently there. Remember, this was a time when labor issues and strikes were likely to involve bloodshed. We have a kinder gentler capitalism now, and if you want to believe that such things as the eight hour day and workers rights to organize were a gift from the generous hands of Republicans, you're welcome to. But it ain't so.

A case can be made that FDR saved this country. Not by drastic change, because most of what he proposed got stalled and gutted by reactionary jackals of the ruling....uh, conservatives. Concerned that things didn't move too quickly, got to be prudent, go slow. But he gave hope, and more importantly, he fostered that notion that the country belongs to us, the dull, the ordinary. The people. We, the people.

A nation is a collective, Moto, like a tribe but writ very large. I love being an American, our revolutionary heritage, how we tore the aristocracy a brand new asshole. Love it to pieces! What's wrong can be changed, what's broken can be fixed. Venceremos!

[Liberal]

It was a common joke in leftist cirlces that the Communist Party USA would have gone broke had it not been for the dues-paying FBI agents.Just had to say, that's pretty funny! :D

[John Mace]

Now, since we know that Communism isn't exactly an innocent ideology, and since we now understand that it is incompatible with American patriotism in much the same way as being in the Klan is incompatible with, well that same patriotism, why wouldn't the same pointed questions apply there as well.
Patriotism is a weird animal. I suppose one could love one's country, but hate the Black people in it. In much the same way, one might love one's country, but hate the economic system most people in it prefer.

And while racists are generally ignorant and mean spirited, I see most modern-day communists as simply naive. They don't set out to destroy freedom, it just seems always to end up that way. Communism and democracy just don't seem to work together. Call it an empirical observation.

[Mr. Moto]

Sure, there is, now! But the past is a different country, they do things differently there. Remember, this was a time when labor issues and strikes were likely to involve bloodshed. We have a kinder gentler capitalism now, and if you want to believe that such things as the eight hour day and workers rights to organize were a gift from the generous hands of Republicans, you're welcome to. But it ain't so.

You don't need to tell me, friend. My grandfather had a SWOC pin. His dad went into the mines when he was a teenager.

Still, somehow they managed to do all of this and become nothing more radical than a Democrat. Imagine that.

[elucidator]

FDR was a Democrat, and widely characterized as a radical. Guess by who? Imagine that.

My own Daddy Rip (grandfather) was a Teamster, saw my first picket line at 2 years. They lost that one, five years later they did it again, and it was even more bitter and mean than the last time. But they won that one, and if I live to be a hundred, the look of pride on those mens faces will be as fresh as it is now. The Teamsters broke his heart with their corruption and duplicity, but that's another story....

[Mr. Moto]

The Teamsters broke his heart with their corruption and duplicity, but that's another story....

Jock Yablonski was murdered a few miles away and a few weeks before I was born.

I'm a lot like you, I grew up in this environment. Thing is, though, in Washington County, Pennsylvania, it is one party rule, and quite corrupt. I had no interest in being a Democrat, especially there, and Reagan era Republicanism held quite a lot of appeal to me.

Doesn't mean, though, that I don't know and like lots of Democrats, especially the union guys I grew up with. And my brother is still a USWA member, if you can believe that.

[elucidator]

Hell, Moto, I got kinfolks just to the left of Otto von Bismarck, don't need to tell me! Got a cousin probably on the Straight to the Wall Come the Revolution List. Will try to get him off it, but failing that, maybe he'll leave me his bass boat. Keep it in the family.

[BobLibDem]

I think it's perfectly valid to be a patriotic American communist. There isn't any reason why communism and civil liberties can't co-exist. It isn't a great system for all, but it seems to work out pretty well in China and Vietnam. There have certainly been more successful communist countries than libertarian ones.

[Mr. Moto]

I think it's perfectly valid to be a patriotic American communist. There isn't any reason why communism and civil liberties can't co-exist. It isn't a great system for all, but it seems to work out pretty well in China and Vietnam. There have certainly been more successful communist countries than libertarian ones.

I find it strange that you mention communism and civil liberties coexisting, and then mention China and Vietnam, two countries with rather significant problems with civil liberties.

But then, defenders of communist regimes often are caught by this, aren't they?

[denquixote]

This may send the thread in an entirely new direction, but I think this needs to be explored further.

elucidator, I am well aware of your distaste for McCatrthyism. But I think your anti-anticommunism has, like so many others' anti-anticommunism, made you quite blind to the real dangers of Communism.

The American Communist Party was controlled and financed by Moscow, and if things had gone any differently and the Soviet Union had come out on top, Gus Hall wouldn't be remembered as a historical footnote - he would be remembered as basically the American Stalin. The experience of Earl Browder proved this - when he tried to distance the party from Moscow, he was promptly expelled from it and ostracized by leftists for the rest of his life.

Perhaps it is true that some patriotic Americans were momentarily seduced by Communism, but that does not change the fact that Communism was fundamentally hostile to and incompatible with American patriotism, and that the leadership of the Communist Party in America were not patriotic in any sense.

Given all of this, I don't know why you can claim that it was once entirely possible to be a patriotic American and a Communist. Again, I think perhaps that sort of thing could happen for a time, like a devout Catholic mulling over atheism, or a Sunday school teacher just sitting in the parlor of the brothel to listen to the piano music. Eventually, though, these sorts of things really are incompatible with each other, and you really ought to face it.


I think you watched to much "I led three lives."

[BrainGlutton]

There have certainly been more successful communist countries than libertarian ones.

I really can't think of any libertarian ones, successful or not.

[denquixote]

As late as the sixties you could not travel across california without seeing signs everywhere calling for the impeachment of earl warren the "communist" who was leading the supreme court and the man eisenhower referred to as the biggest mistake i ever made in office. i remember hearing in the 50's that adlai stevenson was a communist. it was an entirely different era and most left leaning individuals were able to see the benefits of communism without necessarily espousing it as an ideology or poliitical ideal. many progressive blacks became communists "in principle" to lend support to paul robeson who moved to the soviet union for a time and because the commmunist ideology did not differentiate between the races. in fact the school that trained foreign nationals in moscow, what we might refer to as "subversives" was named after an african revolutionary, patrice lamumba. this was while bull connor was standing on the steps of a mississippi schoolhouse keeping little black girls and boys from going to a white school and turning fire hoses on protestors. it was a different time and you cannot believe all the hype you read about it today. if it had not been for the rosenbergs there might still be a useful american communist party.

[Mr. Moto]

I really can't think of any libertarian ones, successful or not.

Switzerland and pre-handover Hong Kong come instantly to mind. Of course, I don't think of these as particular models in any but an economic sense.

[Captain Amazing]

if it had not been for the rosenbergs there might still be a useful american communist party

People who didn't like them may have called Warren and Stevenson might have been called Communists, but they clearly weren't.

And I'd like to see the argument you make in support of the assertion I just quoted.

[denquixote]

i think part of my sympathy toward the american communist party was due to the nature of the huac hearings, the naming of names, the hollywood ten and the numerous stars whose careers were effectively ended by their refusal to name names. even today (well a few years ago) there was a large portion of the audience at the academy awards dinner that refused to stand or applaud as elia kazan was given an oscar for his career because he named names at one of the hearings. but the star whose career i have most admired who was hurt by them was john garfield. he was my favorite actor of all time even though i was too young to have ever seen one of his movies in a theater. "force of evil," "body and soul," "pride of the marines," "the postman always rings twice," "four daughters," and many more are some of the best hollywood has to offer from the 40's. tragically he died of a heart attack at 39 shortly after refusing to name names and being blacklisted even though clifford odets had testified that garfield was never a member of the party (as garfield himself had testified.) movie fans who have not seen his work are in for a treat. he was james dean before james dean.

[Sarahfeena]

I think it's perfectly valid to be a patriotic American communist. There isn't any reason why communism and civil liberties can't co-exist. It isn't a great system for all, but it seems to work out pretty well in China and Vietnam. There have certainly been more successful communist countries than libertarian ones. :dubious: China and Vietnam are good examples of where communism and civil liberties co-exist?

[denquixote]

People who didn't like them may have called Warren and Stevenson might have been called Communists, but they clearly weren't.

And I'd like to see the argument you make in support of the assertion I just quoted.


Well, from the tenor of that statement i doubt that i can make one that you will find remotely convincing, but what i am saying is that what the rosenbergs did was so heinous that the american commmunist party could never overcome the hate and fear that their act caused. the fact is that whether or not they were members of the party they were acting in support of the soviet union just as many think all party supporters did, but there were many party members at one time or another who did not bow down toward moscow. in fact the commmunist party was at the forefront of the civil rights movement and many other progressive causes including the labor movement. what i am saying is that without all of the, bad press doesn't begin to do justice to the perceptions of the public, but without all of the bad press the party might still be a positive influence for fairness and equality instead of being basically non-existent in the eyes of americans in general.

[BrainGlutton]

:dubious: China and Vietnam are good examples of where communism and civil liberties co-exist?

Regarding Vietnam, see Geekmustnotdie's comments in this (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=422789) thread, in particular post #59.

[elucidator]

I find it strange that you mention communism and civil liberties coexisting, and then mention China and Vietnam, two countries with rather significant problems with civil liberties.

But then, defenders of communist regimes often are caught by this, aren't they?
Communist? What the hell is communist about China except for the pretensions of its leadership? I made much the same point about Stalin, Staliln wasn't a Communist, he was a Stalinist, first, last, and always!

China is transforming from an authoritarian Communist regime to an authoritarian capitalist regime. The civil rights abuses are the abuses common to a regime that is determined to keep control, it has nothing to do with ideology.

The Argentine junta, during the bad years, used to fly dissidents out over the ocean and drop them, the dissidents being largely unionist, leftist, that sort of riff-raff. And there are many, many more.

The evil that offends you, Moto, is authoritarianism. Rightly so. But if you are going to excoriate "Communist" regimes for their crimes, might you not, in the interests of fairness, remember than such crimes are not exclusively, nor even predominately, the province of leftist regimes?

In your eagerness to point out, once again, the hypocrisy of the left, you have overlooked an important point.

[John Mace]

Communist? What the hell is communist about China except for the pretensions of its leadership? I made much the same point about Stalin, Staliln wasn't a Communist, he was a Stalinist, first, last, and always!

China is transforming from an authoritarian Communist regime to an authoritarian capitalist regime. The civil rights abuses are the abuses common to a regime that is determined to keep control, it has nothing to do with ideology.

The Argentine junta, during the bad years, used to fly dissidents out over the ocean and drop them, the dissidents being largely unionist, leftist, that sort of riff-raff. And there are many, many more.

The evil that offends you, Moto, is authoritarianism. Rightly so. But if you are going to excoriate "Communist" regimes for their crimes, might you not, in the interests of fairness, remember than such crimes are not exclusively, nor even predominately, the province of leftist regimes?
Yeah, this thread is about authoritative regimes, isn't it? Oh wait, it isn't. It's about Communist regimes. If you want folks to weigh in on authoritarian right wing regimes like Argentina's previous gov't, why don't you start such a thread?

Bob mentioned China and civil rights in one post, which is highly dubious. People called him on it, as well they should have. Period.

[Sarahfeena]

Regarding Vietnam, see Geekmustnotdie's comments in this (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=422789) thread, in particular post #59. I'm glad that Geekmustnotdie has had a good experience there, and maybe things are improving. But from what I have read (http://hrw.org/english/docs/2007/02/06/vietna15277.htm), things are not quite so rosy as that.

[elucidator]

Yeah, this thread is about authoritative regimes, isn't it? Oh wait, it isn't. It's about Communist regimes...
Boy, you never expect the Thread Police.

One is, of course, ever grateful for John's vigorous protection of thread integrity, but hastens to remind that the thread is technicly about Lucille Ball, who is not, so far as I can determine, Chinese.

[BrainGlutton]

Yeah, this thread is about authoritative regimes, isn't it? Oh wait, it isn't. It's about Communist regimes.

Actually, it's about the purported Communist affiliations of Lucille Ball.

[denquixote]

Yeah, this thread is about authoritative regimes, isn't it? Oh wait, it isn't. It's about Communist regimes. If you want folks to weigh in on authoritarian right wing regimes like Argentina's previous gov't, why don't you start such a thread?

Bob mentioned China and civil rights in one post, which is highly dubious. People called him on it, as well they should have. Period.

actually didn't this thread have something to do with Lucille Ball?

[John Mace]

Actually, China is a good example of why economic freedom is so important. As bad as China's record on human rights is right now, it's at least an order of magnitude better than it was 25 years ago (if such things can be quantified like that). When you have some money of your own, the government is going to have a tougher time regulating your behavior. But when you have to stand in line for the government to give you your daily bread, that government doesn't even have to work too hard at keeping you in line (pardon the pun).

The Chinese are far from having the political freedom we enjoy and that they deserve. And although we've seen many a capitalist authoritarian regime, we've also seen many capitalist democracies. Some may think it purely coincidental that we've never seen a democratic communists regime. Odd coincidence, that. Very odd.

[Captain Amazing]

in fact the commmunist party was at the forefront of the civil rights movement and many other progressive causes including the labor movement.

It's probably more accurate to say that the Communist party infiltrated the civil rights movement, as well as many other Progressive causes, including the labor movement. It's a process called "entryism".

And I'd argue, as to your comments about the Rosenbergs, that, by the time the Rosenbergs were arrested, the Communist Party was already pretty dead as a mass party. What most hurt the Communists was the Nazi-Soviet pact.

[John Mace]

Actually, it's about the purported Communist affiliations of Lucille Ball.
Eh. It's still about communism, not right wing authoritarianism. I do however invite our good friend elucidator to lead by example if he wants others to be even handed and "fair".

Snarky reply surely to follow...

[Nametag]

Actually, it's about the purported Communist affiliations of Lucille Ball.
I enjoyed her TV show. Once. In the 1960s. For 20 minutes.

[elucidator]

John, by what authority do you make these determinations? Did anyone give you a whistle and a striped shirt?

Point of fact, classical Marxism demands authoritarianism, hence the "dictatorship of the Proletariat". Or course, it also insists that any such revolution must arise from an industrialized economy, which required Mao to do a bit of creative fudging. Authoritarianism is central to Marxist ideology, reason #215 why I am not a Communist.

It is fair to point out the prevalence of authoritarianism in human affairs simply to avoid the suggestion that it is somehow unique or particular to leftist ideology. It is no such thing. Men have oppressed others in the name of Jesus, which raised hypocrisy to a level previously undreamed of.

I am entirely and firmly opposed to authoritarianism of any stripe. But I will not pretend that the ideology draped over the mailed fist to lend legitimacy is of any consequence.

[elucidator]

I enjoyed her TV show. Once. In the 1960s. For 20 minutes.
There was one in which Harpo Marx appeared, and Lucy dressed as him and did a spot on impression. There is a scene therein where she trys to make Harpo believe that he is observing himself in a mirror that is pure genius.

[Fear Itself]

There was one in which Harpo Marx appeared, and Lucy dressed as him and did a spot on impression. You sure that wasn't Karl Marx?

[tomndebb]

Some may think it purely coincidental that we've never seen a democratic communists regime. Odd coincidence, that. Very odd.Nothing odd about it. Anyone who tried to establish one got knocked off by the CIA. :p (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9005797/Salvador-Allende)

[tomndebb]

However, the personal sniping is getting wearisome. Everyone back off the comments on other posters, their posting styles, their capacity for comprehension, their ability to deal with facts, and which way they fold the tissue paper after blowing their nose.

[ /Moderating ]

[BobLibDem]

:dubious: China and Vietnam are good examples of where communism and civil liberties co-exist?

Oh no, no, no. I definitely could have phrased it better. They are examples of communist systems that work to some degree. I also said that communism and civil liberties were not necessarily mutually exclusive. I didn't say that there have been any examples of THAT. Perhaps I mentioned these points too close to each other. No, Vietnam and China are not bastions of civil liberties. But they could become that without going capitalist.

[John Mace]

However, the personal sniping is getting wearisome. Everyone back off the comments on other posters, their posting styles, their capacity for comprehension, their ability to deal with facts, and which way they fold the tissue paper after blowing their nose.

[ /Moderating ]
Good call. Mea culpa.

I also think the idea that there were no true communist regimes is a red herring. Stalin might not have been a "true communist" but his predecessors were close enough-- especially if we're going to say the US was founded by "true capitalists". The fact is, we are a power hungry species and when we create the conditions for someone to grab the reigns of power and yank them tight around our necks, someone will inevitably rise to the challenge. History shows us this over and over and over again.

Now, it could be that this modern experiment with liberal democracy and capitalism is just a longer term set-up for someone grabbing that power eventually. Maybe. But we'd be silly to fall into the trap of thinking that "true communism" hasn't been tried. It has. Repeatedly. And it's proven to be a disaster for those subject to it.

We've also seen the difficulty of making the change from such a system once the people throw it off. Russia isn a good example of how not to do things (ie, let the old elite seize the assets and run the country as an oligarchy), although some of the smaller eastern European countries seem to have done quite well.

China presents all sorts of unique challenges because it is largely an empire, not a nation (much like the old USSR). It's entirely unclear that a liberal democracy could flourish in China without the country as it exists now splitting along ethnic fault lines. There are large segments of the population who do not consider themselves Chinese. It's also a mistake to say that China is now effectively a capitalist economy. China is a patchwork of systems, with a minority (though still large in absolute terms) urban population living in a largely capitalist society but with the vast majority of the people living in an effectively feudal society in the rural areas. The split was about 80/20 rural to urban a few years ago. I'm not sure what it is now, but maybe it's 75/25.

Vietnam probably has a much better chance of making the transitions successfully, if it chooses to do so. It's a smaller country, and while it has it's ethnic divisions, they are not so much associated with geographic fault lines like you see in China (eg, Tibet).

[Mr. Moto]

Oh no, no, no. I definitely could have phrased it better. They are examples of communist systems that work to some degree. I also said that communism and civil liberties were not necessarily mutually exclusive. I didn't say that there have been any examples of THAT. Perhaps I mentioned these points too close to each other. No, Vietnam and China are not bastions of civil liberties. But they could become that without going capitalist.

Well, I think we'd argue over the degree to which that is true. Still, considering how often I turn a phrase here that turns out to be misunderstood or ill-considered, I'll certainly accept your clarification on this point.

[elucidator]

Good call. Mea culpa...
Mea too.

[BobLibDem]

Well, I think we'd argue over the degree to which that is true. Still, considering how often I turn a phrase here that turns out to be misunderstood or ill-considered, I'll certainly accept your clarification on this point.

Thanks. Once in a while I might write or say something and then wonder how in the heck people interpreted it entirely differently. Generally it means that it was said unclearly, as it was in this case.

[elucidator]

In your case, sure, but just try being a left-winger on a board dominated by conservatives and libertarians, like this one!

[Sarahfeena]

Oh no, no, no. I definitely could have phrased it better. They are examples of communist systems that work to some degree. I also said that communism and civil liberties were not necessarily mutually exclusive. I didn't say that there have been any examples of THAT. Perhaps I mentioned these points too close to each other. No, Vietnam and China are not bastions of civil liberties. But they could become that without going capitalist. Well, they are working to some degree, that's true. China seems to be working better & better, the more capitalist it becomes. As far as whether communism & civil liberties are not mutually exclusive, I remain unconvinced. I believe that people have a civil right to reap most of the benefits of the fruits of their own labor. I also believe they have the right to help determine, through democratic vote, how much they will keep for themselves, and how much will go to the society at large. I am not sure communism can ever survive in a situation where that vote is truly free, as I think that human nature will cause a pull away from communism and towards capitalism. Therefore, the only way that a truly communist government (as opposed to socialist) can hang onto that system is to not allow democracy.

[John Mace]

Oh no, no, no. I definitely could have phrased it better. They are examples of communist systems that work to some degree. I also said that communism and civil liberties were not necessarily mutually exclusive. I didn't say that there have been any examples of THAT. Perhaps I mentioned these points too close to each other. No, Vietnam and China are not bastions of civil liberties. But they could become that without going capitalist.
I don't see why you'd say that. They certainly don't appear to be doing that. They are liberalizing to some degree by going capitalist to some degree. Do you really think that's just a coincidence?

Communism seems to work OK on a very small scale-- like a family. On a larger scale, it would work great-- if we were social insects (which, oddly enough, consist of one large extended family). But we humans are power-grubbing primates. Sorry but that is just what we are. If we want to congregate in nation states, we would be foolish to organize around a system that doesn't mesh with what we are as a species. Communism concentrates the management of a country's wealth in the hands of a small group at the top. If we were ants, that small group could be trusted to share it equally and fairly. But we're not ants, and what will always happen is that someone will take the opportunity to monopolize that power and abuse it.

Capitalism can result in the dangerous congregation of wealth, but it doesn't have to. People are allowed to won things, which they are not able to do in a communist system. When you own your own "means of production", you aren't dependent on the government for your survival. When you next meal is safely in the pantry (instead of waiting for you down at the government cooperative), you can risk criticizing the government and know you can still eat tomorrow.

[BobLibDem]

Communism seems to work OK on a very small scale-- like a family. On a larger scale, it would work great-- if we were social insects (which, oddly enough, consist of one large extended family). But we humans are power-grubbing primates. Sorry but that is just what we are. If we want to congregate in nation states, we would be foolish to organize around a system that doesn't mesh with what we are as a species. Communism concentrates the management of a country's wealth in the hands of a small group at the top. If we were ants, that small group could be trusted to share it equally and fairly. But we're not ants, and what will always happen is that someone will take the opportunity to monopolize that power and abuse it.

I think we have to disagree here. Humans are a social creature as are some other primates. If you had the right people at the top, communism could work. I agree that power corrupts and it is generally doomed to failure. But in theory it could work. In contrast, I think libertarianism is a non-starter just because humans are by nature social and interdependent.

[Voyager]

There was one in which Harpo Marx appeared, and Lucy dressed as him and did a spot on impression. There is a scene therein where she trys to make Harpo believe that he is observing himself in a mirror that is pure genius.
And an exact copy of the scene in Duck Soup.
Though Lucy did look more like Harpo than his brother did. (or vice versa, actually, since Harpo disguised himself as Groucho.)

[Mr. Moto]

I think we have to disagree here. Humans are a social creature as are some other primates. If you had the right people at the top, communism could work.

Ah, that quest for the perfect enlightened autocrat. We've been waiting for him since Plato. He hasn't arrived yet.

In contrast, I think libertarianism is a non-starter just because humans are by nature social and interdependent.

I think you badly misunderstand libertarianism - it does not presuppose loneliness and solitude. Nor does it presuppose a weak society - indeed, for it to work, society must be strong, and its churches and charities and families and businesses would do much of the work we depend on government for now.

Mind you, I do not believe in pure libertarianism. But your caricature of it seems unfair to me.

[Voyager]

Well, from the tenor of that statement i doubt that i can make one that you will find remotely convincing, but what i am saying is that what the rosenbergs did was so heinous that the american commmunist party could never overcome the hate and fear that their act caused. the fact is that whether or not they were members of the party they were acting in support of the soviet union just as many think all party supporters did, but there were many party members at one time or another who did not bow down toward moscow. in fact the commmunist party was at the forefront of the civil rights movement and many other progressive causes including the labor movement. what i am saying is that without all of the, bad press doesn't begin to do justice to the perceptions of the public, but without all of the bad press the party might still be a positive influence for fairness and equality instead of being basically non-existent in the eyes of americans in general.

I think the watershed was actually the German Soviet nonaggression pact , which led directly to the invasion of Poland by both. In the 30s communists were anti-Fascists, which had appeal for the left who felt the mainstream of America didn't get it. After Stalin threw in with Hitler, anyone still supporting Communism was clearly more of a slave to ideology, and lots of people broke off.
It was the place where idealism could be distinguished from stupidity.

Anyone justifying a treaty with Hitler could easily justify the theft of atomic secrets.

[elucidator]

... But we humans are power-grubbing primates. Sorry but that is just what we are....
Any argument based on the iron facts of human nature is closer to theology than political science. Nonetheless, we are monkeys, and monkeys are social and tribal. The trick our ancestors appear to have used is social status: the humonkey that obtains the most, shares the most, and his status increases. The insanely selfish monkey that rejects the tribe will be rejected by the tribe, and his genes are toast. He ain't gonna get no jungle love!

"A man will do many things to be loved, but he'll do damn near anything to be envied."
- Mark Twain, paraphrased

[John Mace]

I think we have to disagree here. Humans are a social creature as are some other primates. If you had the right people at the top, communism could work. I agree that power corrupts and it is generally doomed to failure. But in theory it could work. In contrast, I think libertarianism is a non-starter just because humans are by nature social and interdependent.
Neither system is well suited to H. sapiens.

Although every brand of communism isn't the same, it was common among early communist thinkers to believe that a new type of human being would emerge from a communist society-- one that literally had changed into, as Lenin envisioned: someone altruist in spirit, communal in outlook, sacrificial in his labour for the common good, boundless in his fight for world revolution. I'm sure that sounded wonderfully scientific back in the days when human nature was thought to be infinitely malleable and that people could be conditioned to be anything by design. We know better now.

Yes, humans have a social, cooperative nature to a certain extent. We also crave freedom, but not at the complete loss of some level of security. Communism posits a stateless society, but in fact demands a state of frighteningly broad powers. If you start with a such a system, I just can't see that you can liberalize it without changing its very nature. Once the reigns of power are handed over to someone, even if that person the most benign person in the world, someone else not so benign is going to usurp that power.

OTOH, if you start with a capitalist system and apply the moderating factors of a liberal democracy, you seem to strike the right balance between our competing desires (one for freedom, the other for security). We can (obviously) argue all day about exactly how to strike that balance. The main difference is that a free market system does not require an over-arching state to control the economy. A communist system does (regardless of what their sales literature says).

[elucidator]

...The main difference is that a free market system does not require an over-arching state to control the economy. A communist system does (regardless of what their sales literature says).
Most certainly does. It is a central axiom of capitalism that the guy who can buy the most can get it at the least price. By which means capital tends to clot, cluster and accumulate: them what's got, gets more. And more. And so it goes...

There most definitely needs be some controls on that. Wal Mart will not rule the world any better than Lenin.

[Kimstu]

Switzerland and pre-handover Hong Kong come instantly to mind.

Switzerland!?? A libertarian country? You shittin' me?

Switzerland is a libertarian country in the sense that Norway is a communist country. I.e., both are firmly planted in the middle ground of capitalist-welfare-state mixed economies, although Switzerland leans somewhat to the capitalist end of that spectrum and Norway somewhat to the socialist end.

Neither Switzerland nor British Hong Kong could reasonably be described as a genuinely libertarian country, AFAICT. Both took for granted things like mandatory taxation, publicly funded social programs, territorial sovereignty, public roads, and all sorts of other stuff that libertarians like to file under the headings "tyranny", "theft", "enslavement", and their ilk.

[denquixote]

[QUOTE=Voyager]I think the watershed was actually the German Soviet nonaggression pact , which led directly to the invasion of Poland by both. In the 30s communists were anti-Fascists, which had appeal for the left who felt the mainstream of America didn't get it. After Stalin threw in with Hitler, anyone still supporting Communism was clearly more of a slave to ideology, and lots of people broke off.
It was the place where idealism could be distinguished from stupidity.

Anyone justifying a treaty with Hitler could easily justify the theft of atomic secrets.[/QUO

You mean people like Charles Linbergh, the members of the America First Committee, the Prime Minister of Great Britain and the majority of the American people who opposed intervention into WWII until the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor.
If it wasn't for Stalin, the guy who threw in with Hitler, and the Soviet people you'd probably be speaking German right now but you wouldn't be doing it on the internet unless you were wearing a brown shirt.

[Voyager]

You mean people like Charles Linbergh, the members of the America First Committee, the Prime Minister of Great Britain and the majority of the American people who opposed intervention into WWII until the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor.
If it wasn't for Stalin, the guy who threw in with Hitler, and the Soviet people you'd probably be speaking German right now but you wouldn't be doing it on the internet unless you were wearing a brown shirt.
Neville Chamberlain was against the war up to Pearl Harbor? News to me. :)

Lindbergh and the Bund were hardly leftists. The nonaggression pact was made before WW II started, of course, so reaction to it had nothing to do with interventionism.

As for Stalin, you are surely aware that he pooh-poohed his generals' warnings about a German attack until it was almost too late. The Russian Army fought very well, but Stalin had no choice but to be on our side. If Hitler hadn't attacked him, I doubt you'd be remembering him all that fondly. It was Hitler's blunder, not Stalin's virtue that helped us.

Ever read The Guglag Archipelago, all three volumes? It might be a cure for your rosey view of Communism and Stalin.

[Bryan Ekers]

if things had gone any differently and the Republicans had come out on top, Ronald Reagan wouldn't be remembered as a historical footnote - he would be remembered as basically the American John Galt.
As who?

[John Mace]

HK has generally been touted as the closest thing to a libertarian state that has existed. Milton Friedman often made that point. While they had most of the same institutions you could find in any western country, those institutions were more limited in size. Make of that what you may.

I've never heard Switzerland touted as a libertarian state, though.

Most certainly does. It is a central axiom of capitalism that the guy who can buy the most can get it at the least price. By which means capital tends to clot, cluster and accumulate: them what's got, gets more. And more. And so it goes...

There most definitely needs be some controls on that. Wal Mart will not rule the world any better than Lenin.
Well, I guess it depends on your definitino of "over-arching".

In a communist state, the government runs everything-- the army, the post office, the schools the farms, the factories, the stores, the press. Everything. 100% of GDP is controlled by the state. (Excluding, of course, the large underground economy found in almost every communist country.) And the idea that the New Communist Man, who is supposed to emerge in the communist utopia, will allow the state "whither away" is pseudo-scientific nonsense.

In a capitalist country the government has a much more limited scope. Judging strictly by taxes, a federal government need only control a fraction of GDP-- in the US it's about 20%. But I don't know if that's even an accurate statement since the production of those taxes is not directly controlled by the state-- I suspect that overstates the case some.

[elucidator]

As who?
Country singer. Sings about real estate, capital gains.

[denquixote]

Neville Chamberlain was against the war up to Pearl Harbor? News to me. :)

Lindbergh and the Bund were hardly leftists. The nonaggression pact was made before WW II started, of course, so reaction to it had nothing to do with interventionism.

As for Stalin, you are surely aware that he pooh-poohed his generals' warnings about a German attack until it was almost too late. The Russian Army fought very well, but Stalin had no choice but to be on our side. If Hitler hadn't attacked him, I doubt you'd be remembering him all that fondly. It was Hitler's blunder, not Stalin's virtue that helped us.

Ever read The Guglag Archipelago, all three volumes? It might be a cure for your rosey view of Communism and Stalin.

I have no rosey view of stalinism which is what you should be calling it and perhaps i phrased it badly but since you were equating communists with those who appeased hitler and would therefore have no qualms about stealing america's atomic bomb secrets i thought that you might want to apply the same standard to great britain. i was referring to the vast majority of americans who were against the war up until pearl harbor, not chamberlain. the same applies to lindbergh - it was not my point, but yours - those who truck with persons like hitler might also steal america's secrets.

whether or not stalin believed hitler would attack him there is no question that his non-aggression pact was intended to prevent a loss of russian life probably the same thing that motivated chamberlain and every other leader of every other country when they agree to treaties.

i agree with those who would say that stalin was an unprincipled, power - mad dictator. whether or not he had some redeeming qualities, such as a genuine belief in an egalitarian system i don't know and nor do i care. my only point is that communism is no more evil than the catholic church or the united states of america. it is a philosophy that depends for success on the behavior of people and therein lies its major flaw. the same flaw that exists within the church and within the u.s. government. were there no rosenberg case i believe that the american communist party could have a positive influence on contemporary america. but as i said initially, i have no hope of convincing you.

[Voyager]

I have no rosey view of stalinism which is what you should be calling it and perhaps i phrased it badly but since you were equating communists with those who appeased hitler and would therefore have no qualms about stealing america's atomic bomb secrets i thought that you might want to apply the same standard to great britain. i was referring to the vast majority of americans who were against the war up until pearl harbor, not chamberlain. the same applies to lindbergh - it was not my point, but yours - those who truck with persons like hitler might also steal america's secrets.

i agree with those who would say that stalin was an unprincipled, power - mad dictator. whether or not he had some redeeming qualities, such as a genuine belief in an egalitarian system i don't know and nor do i care. my only point is that communism is no more evil than the catholic church or the united states of america. it is a philosophy that depends for success on the behavior of people and therein lies its major flaw. the same flaw that exists within the church and within the u.s. government. were there no rosenberg case i believe that the american communist party could have a positive influence on contemporary america. but as i said initially, i have no hope of convincing you.
I haven't read much of Marx (Karl, Groucho I have read) but I suspect he doesn't say a damn thing about how to deal with Nazi Germany. So, I was reacting to your praise of Stalin for standing up to Hitler.

Lenin wasn't such a sweetheart either. He started the camps, which was one of the more scandalous parts of the Archipelago.

Is Communism inherently evil? Only in the sense that, like all utopian philosophies, its proponents start to get mad when people refuse to act like they are supposed to. Less rigid philosophies moderate, so socialist governments become less socialist, and capitalist societies get more government involvement. I suspect a purely libertarian society would create just as much misery, not at the hands of the government but due to lack of government intervention for fear of corrupting the tenets of the philosophy. And remember I said pure libertarians who are about to jump on me.

[LonesomePolecat]

I do not place the American Communist party on a pedestal, I am fully aware of thier shortcomings. The only corrective I would urge is that they were not all shortcomings. The Communists were on the forefront of the movement for racial equality long before it was respectable to the mainstream.
The fact remains that the Communists had already killed millions of people before Hitler ever came to power, and Stalin and Mao eventually kill more than a hundred million people in the decades ranging from 1917 to 1970. Whatever good the Communists may have achieved is vastly outweighed by that pile of corpses, and sneering anti-Communism away as hysterical paranoia is profoundly dishonest.

[Bryan Ekers]

my only point is that communism is no more evil than the catholic church or the united states of america.

How do you define "evil"? Body count? General surliness? Compulsive pinching? Is the U.K. more evil or less evil than the U.S.? How about Canada? The U.K. and Canada have governmental systems near-identical to the U.S. and the U.K. was in the empire-building business long before the U.S. became a global power, so I'm just curious if your use of "evil" means anything more than "I don't like them."

[elucidator]

The fact remains that the Communists had already killed millions of people before Hitler ever came to power, and Stalin and Mao eventually kill more than a hundred million people in the decades ranging from 1917 to 1970. Whatever good the Communists may have achieved is vastly outweighed by that pile of corpses, and sneering anti-Communism away as hysterical paranoia is profoundly dishonest.
Just as pretending that Communists are a single monolithic entity is either dishonest or ill-informed. You pretend that the Soviet Communists and the Euro-Communists are precisely the same, and, of course, they are not, Marcuse and Molotov are light-years apart in terms of humanity and tolerance.

For instance, the Sandanistas. We have it on the very best authority, St. Ronnie himself!, that the Sandanistas were utterly committed Communists of the same bloodthirsty stripe you so rightly deplore. Fought a ghastly civil war for years, and then won. What happened will surprise you (as I can only assume you don't know, otherwise your opinion would have more nuance...). They held an election. They lost to a center-right coalition. Did they march all of the opposition to The Wall and liquidate them? Hustle them off to re-education camps? Not hardly. They turned over the government to the winners. But, you already know this, don't you, LP? Surely you know this?

Communism is not a discrete entity, of single source and single purpose, any more than Christianity. The world would be a simpler place if it were so starkly clear who were Good Guys, and who Bad. But it isn't.

[LonesomePolecat]

Just as pretending that Communists are a single monolithic entity is either dishonest or ill-informed. You pretend that the Soviet Communists and the Euro-Communists are precisely the same, and, of course, they are not, Marcuse and Molotov are light-years apart in terms of humanity and tolerance.

For instance, the Sandanistas. We have it on the very best authority, St. Ronnie himself!, that the Sandanistas were utterly committed Communists of the same bloodthirsty stripe you so rightly deplore. Fought a ghastly civil war for years, and then won. What happened will surprise you (as I can only assume you don't know, otherwise your opinion would have more nuance...). They held an election. They lost to a center-right coalition. Did they march all of the opposition to The Wall and liquidate them? Hustle them off to re-education camps? Not hardly. They turned over the government to the winners. But, you already know this, don't you, LP? Surely you know this?

Communism is not a discrete entity, of single source and single purpose, any more than Christianity. The world would be a simpler place if it were so starkly clear who were Good Guys, and who Bad. But it isn't.
Stalin and Mao belonged to the same political movement and drew upon the same political ideology to justify their actions. The Communists in the Soviet Union had close relations with the Communists in China both before and after Mao & Co. took over China. No, the Communist movement in Russia and the Communist movement in China aren't precisely the same; but pretending that they aren't closely related and/or that they presented no threat to the West is, again, dishonest.

If the Sandinistas didn't establish a Stalinist dictatorship similar to Cuba's, it was only because they didn't get the opportunity. Fortunately, St. Ronnie's skulduggery worked, and the Sandinistas lost power. They held an election only because their feet were held to the fire, and they abided by the results of the election only because they couldn't get away with ignoring it. It had nothing to do with any honorable intentions on the part of the Sandinistas. No one who hasn't been blinded by ideology seriously believes that the Sandinistas were any more democratic than Castro and his posse.

Your sarcasm is adolescent and tiresome.

[elucidator]

I'm a bit confused here, Lonesome. St Ronnies skullduggery worked? But only after they won their civil war? Why not before? Seems a bit odd, a plan that forces one's enemies to capitulate only after they win. Why didn't they immediately return to guerilla warfare? What awesome power did St. Ronnie use to force this conclusion, that he couldn't have used before? Mind rays?

The light of certainty blinds more than it reveals.

[tomndebb]

Your sarcasm is adolescent and tiresome.As is yours and we do not need either of you getting personal in this Forum, right 'Luci?

[ /Moderating ]

[Fear Itself]

Fortunately, St. Ronnie's skulduggery worked, and the Sandinistas lost power. They held an election only because their feet were held to the fire, and they abided by the results of the election only because they couldn't get away with ignoring it. It had nothing to do with any honorable intentions on the part of the Sandinistas. No one who hasn't been blinded by ideology seriously believes that the Sandinistas were any more democratic than Castro and his posse.Unsupportable claptrap.

[elucidator]

As is yours and we do not need either of you getting personal in this Forum, right 'Luci?

[ /Moderating ]
Perhaps you would be so kind as to point out to me which "personal" remarks of mine are worthy of rebuke?

[tomndebb]

Perhaps you would be so kind as to point out to me which "personal" remarks of mine are worthy of rebuke?You have not yet been rebuked, but if you missed your address to LP in post #104, it was very definitely intended to make personal observations.
I am simply indicating that it will be well for this thread and the posters in it to refrain from making the discussion personal.

[Mr. Moto]

For instance, the Sandanistas. We have it on the very best authority, St. Ronnie himself!, that the Sandanistas were utterly committed Communists of the same bloodthirsty stripe you so rightly deplore. Fought a ghastly civil war for years, and then won. What happened will surprise you (as I can only assume you don't know, otherwise your opinion would have more nuance...). They held an election. They lost to a center-right coalition. Did they march all of the opposition to The Wall and liquidate them? Hustle them off to re-education camps? Not hardly. They turned over the government to the winners. But, you already know this, don't you, LP? Surely you know this?

You are leaving a lot of information out of your story, aren't you?

First of all, while the Sandinistas took power in 1979, they didn't have that free election until 1990. Why didn't they have a free one before then, hmm?

Secondly, in the interim, they didn't exactly have a spotless human rights record, did they? They imprisoned dissidents, many of whom vanished mysteriously. The opposition newspaper was closed, and other censorship was practiced. And their treatment of the Miskito Indians, whose land they coveted, was so brutal that Elie Wiesel likened it to genocide.

Thirdly, after the Sandinistas supposedly "lost power" they held on to all of the property they had stolen from private owners when they nationalized it (interesting form of Communism that, private ownership->state ownership->Daniel Ortega's ownership). This led to a form of rule called the pinata - where the monied Sandinistas would strike at the structures and politicians supposedly above them.

This was further facilitated by the fact that the Sandinistas retained control of the military - indeed, the military was called the Sandinista Popular Army after the revolution. While the process has begun to transform the military into a non-partisan and professional force, this has been preliminary at best. The Sandinistas also retained full control over the judiciary, and blocked efforts to reform such.

These power structures helped keep Daniel Ortega out of jail on rape charges filed against him by his own stepdaughter. The charges have been described as highly substantiated, the abuse described began at age 11.

Now, perhaps you were not aware of this more complicated picture. But your simplistic picture, one that painted the Sandinistas as friendly democrats, wasn't terribly accurate, and didn't take into account at all events after 1990.

[Fear Itself]

First of all, while the Sandinistas took power in 1979, they didn't have that free election until 1990. Why didn't they have a free one before then, hmm?Let's put that in context, Moto; how many free, open elections did the Somoza dynasty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Nicaragua#The_Somoza_Dynasty_.281936_-_1979.29) permit in their 34 years of power? Progress is good, even when imperfect.

[LonesomePolecat]

I'm a bit confused here, Lonesome. St Ronnies skullduggery worked? But only after they won their civil war? Why not before? Seems a bit odd, a plan that forces one's enemies to capitulate only after they win. Why didn't they immediately return to guerilla warfare? What awesome power did St. Ronnie use to force this conclusion, that he couldn't have used before? Mind rays?

The light of certainty blinds more than it reveals.
Most of America's covert and not-so-covert actions against Ortega and his posse took place after the civil war with Somoza. Not that America's motives were pure and noble--basically we didn't want Nicaragua to spin out of orbit around the United States into the Soviet bloc. Not that it matters. The Western hemisphere didn't need another Cuba.

[Mr. Moto]

Progress is good, even when imperfect.

Well, the Sandinistas sure weren't perfect, were they? And I don't know how much progress they were, either.

Violeta Chamorro used to support their cause, but left it when it became clear that they were just another strain of Latin American strongmen. They reacted, of course, by restricting her freedoms severely, including censoring and often closing down the newspaper that she ran - the one that had so heroically opposed Samoza as well.

I know you can't support such a thing, right? Nor can you support the mistreatment of the Miskito Indians, right?

Anyway, we now have the Sandinistas back in power, with no U.S. opposition. We'll see pretty clearly whether they are true democrats or not soon enough.

[elucidator]

Your accusations are noticeably free of citations. An oversight I am sure you will rush to amend.

[Fear Itself]

Well, the Sandinistas sure weren't perfect, were they? And I don't know how much progress they were, either. They held free, open elections, and abided by the outcome when it went against them. Somoza staged rigged elections that only elected family members and their stooges. That is progress.

[LonesomePolecat]

Your accusations are noticeably free of citations. An oversight I am sure you will rush to amend.
For that matter, your own remarks are remarkably free of citations. I'm sure you'll rush to correct that oversight as well.

[elucidator]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandinista

The ever popular Wikepedia. Your turn.

Look, no one is claiming that the Sandanistas were secular saints, purity radiating from their very being. They never would have won if they were, given the extent and the power of their opposition.

"You know, those Colonial traitors...Paine, Jefferson, et.al., purport to lead a popular and united front in their treason against the King, but it isn't so! And their elections! Did they permit a loyalist candidate to run? They did not! And they ruthlessly attacked the persons and property of those who dared speak against them, many of whom were forced to flee to Canada in fear of their lives! No sir! You cannot tell me that this is progress! Why, that fellow Paine immediatly dashed off to France to foment insurrection there! He's an atheist, you know!..."

[LonesomePolecat]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandinista

The ever popular Wikepedia. Your turn.


Remembering Sandanista Genocide. (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=180) And don't complain that it's biased. It's at least as objective as Wikipedia.

[elucidator]

Front Page is as objective as Wikipedia? You serious?

Review this list of names: Trujillo, Batista, Pinochet, Samoza, Uguarte, etc. Besides having hands bloody up to the elbows, what have they in common. Take your time, if need be, if you are overcome by nausea for the moment, I'll quite understand...

[LonesomePolecat]

Front Page is as objective as Wikipedia? You serious?

Yes, I'm quite serious. Which of the facts in that article do you dispute, and on what grounds do you dispute them?

[elucidator]

Well, the source! You know as well as I that Front Page has a decided slant and an agenda, hence your pre-emptive strike demanding that I accept it as being as objective as Wikipedia. Why else would you need to?

C'mon, guy, fight fair!

[LonesomePolecat]

Well, the source! You know as well as I that Front Page has a decided slant and an agenda, hence your pre-emptive strike demanding that I accept it as being as objective as Wikipedia. Why else would you need to?

C'mon, guy, fight fair!Again, which of his facts do you dispute, and on what grounds do you dispute them?

[elucidator]

How does this work again? You can brush aside my questions and cites, and demand answers to your own? Not sure of the protocols.

[John Mace]

Well, the source! You know as well as I that Front Page has a decided slant and an agenda, hence your pre-emptive strike demanding that I accept it as being as objective as Wikipedia. Why else would you need to?

C'mon, guy, fight fair!
Just to be clear, this note sits atop the wikipedia article's section on Sandinista rule that you linked to:

This article does not cite any references or sources.

And it looks like the "discussion" page is longer than the article, as the pro- and anti- sides bash each other over alleged bias.

Wikipedia is good for technical articles, but not so good for political ones. I wouldn't count on this being an unbiased source.

[elucidator]

In comparison to Front Page? Further, I think it speaks well of them that they note that.

[Mr. Moto]

The quotes I will provide here will come from the Freedom House report on Nicaragua. (http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=22&country=7028&year=2006) I trust this cite will be acceptable.


And their treatment of the Miskito Indians, whose land they coveted, was so brutal that Elie Wiesel likened it to genocide.

In 2005, indigenous groups formally asked the government to investigate hundreds of atrocities committed by the Sandinistas during the civil war, when the Miskito were allies of the Contra forces. The Sandinistas have said that stories of atrocities are fueled by continued distrust of the FSLN by the United States, and they blame the United States for encouraging the petition for investigations by the Miskito.

Thirdly, after the Sandinistas supposedly "lost power" they held on to all of the property they had stolen from private owners when they nationalized it (interesting form of Communism that, private ownership->state ownership->Daniel Ortega's ownership). This led to a form of rule called the pinata - where the monied Sandinistas would strike at the structures and politicians supposedly above them.


Before leaving power, the Sandinistas changed laws and sold off state property to party leaders, guaranteeing that they would have political and economic clout in the evolving political climate.

This was further facilitated by the fact that the Sandinistas retained control of the military - indeed, the military was called the Sandinista Popular Army after the revolution. While the process has begun to transform the military into a non-partisan and professional force, this has been preliminary at best. The Sandinistas also retained full control over the judiciary, and blocked efforts to reform such.

The judiciary remains dominated by Sandinista appointees. Many judges are susceptible to political influence and corruption. Because of long delays in trials and a large backlog of cases, the National Assembly has investigated ways to reform the judiciary. However, the government paralysis during 2005 stalled moves toward judicial reform. The FSLN and the PLC have used their influence over the judicial system and their political appointees on the bench to uphold laws making it difficult for minor parties to form and to get their candidates on election ballots. Judicial backing for these laws has also served to keep splinter groups from splitting from Nicaragua's two major parties.


I will gladly look up statistics about the domination of the Nicaraguan military by Sandinista officers. The Ortega rape case and the difficulties Violeta Chamorro faced during the Sandinista years in publishing La Prensa are fairly well known, though I will happily cite them as well, if needed.

[Mr. Moto]

Given that Freedom House continues in the mission of its estimable founders, which included Eleanor Roosevelt and Wendell Willkie both, I'm sure you won't dispute that source.

[LonesomePolecat]

How does this work again? You can brush aside my questions and cites, and demand answers to your own? Not sure of the protocols. Okay, one more time. Which of his facts do you deny, and on what grounds do you deny them?

[John Mace]

In comparison to Front Page? Further, I think it speaks well of them that they note that.
An uncited piece is an uncited piece. The guy who wrote the FrontPage article has a PhD in history, at least, so maybe his post is his cite. As for speaking well of "them", let's just be clear about who "them" are: it's not the folks who write the wiki articles who post those notices-- it's the administrators.

[elucidator]

...Nicaraguans can change their government democratically....

...The constitution from the Sandinista period calls for a free press but allows some government censorship. Although the government has not used these powers, there has been no movement to change these constitutional provisions....
Somoza regime, contrast and compare, and tell me then that some progress has not been made.

Again, no claims of perfection have been made, only that the concept of Communism as a universal and unmitigated source of evil is wildly exaggerated. Our own hands, as I have pointed out, are not free of innocent blood. As above: Trujillo, Batista, Uguarte, Pinochet..

If the Sandanistas are evil what then is our excuse?

[LonesomePolecat]

Again, no claims of perfection have been made, only that the concept of Communism as a universal and unmitigated source of evil is wildly exaggerated.
As previously noted, the pile of corpses produced by Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and their ilk is at least nine or ten times as large as that produced by the Nazis. If you can send more than one hundred million deaths down the memory hole to make a statement like that, you are beyond the reach of reason. Or perhaps you'd care to say that the revulsion most people feel for the Nazis is wildly exaggerated?

[elucidator]

Let me be clear about something. I didn't really think the Sandanistas would do as well as they did, the aftermath of revolutions are a wretched business. Its not that they did so very well, but that I expected so much worse. I was stunned....stunned!...that they went ahead with an election, and even more stunned that it was fair (they lost, after all) and flabbergasted that they complied with that election.

The current running thread on the CIA's mea fuckup is timely. Our ideology is excellent, an ideology I wholly embrace. But look to what ends that ideology has been perverted! If we are to say that the source of Communists commiting crimes is their ideology, aren't we obligated to focus the same light on our own actions?

[Mr. Moto]

This was a current report, talking about the current government. The Sandinistas indeed used those censorship powers during the 1980s.

And again, this report was talking about the current period, where elections are being held with some regularity, not the 1980s, when they weren't.

And even with all of that, Freedom House still classifies Nicaragua as only partially free - and a lot of the problems they cite are because of the Sandinistas.

Moreover, and I do not know if this is a result of changing methodology, Nicaragua today scores lower on Freedom House's metric than it did during both the Sandinista regime and the Somoza regime going all the way back to 1973. And I remind you that the Sandinistas are back in power there.

So it probably isn't a great idea to paint the Sandinistas as harbingers of any kind of progress.

[elucidator]

Compared to the Somoza regime, I ask again? Compared to regimes as noted above, regimes that we fostered and supported? Have we some cause for pride in such men as Trujillo, Batista, Somoza, Uguarte, and a list as long as your arm? Is it our ideology that is to blame?

[Mr. Moto]

Let me be clear about something. I didn't really think the Sandanistas would do as well as they did, the aftermath of revolutions are a wretched business. Its not that they did so very well, but that I expected so much worse. I was stunned....stunned!...that they went ahead with an election, and even more stunned that it was fair (they lost, after all) and flabbergasted that they complied with that election.

Ah, the soft bigotry of low expectations. ;)

Anyway, the extent to which they complied has been documented. It's as if I were to sell you my Toyota but hang onto the drivetrain. I guess you'd have something of value, but it wouldn't move much.

Let's just be realistic about things, shall we? I don't defend Somoza, except to say that there might be worse bastards out there. You seem to have the same notions about the Sandinistas when push comes to shove.

As commies, they didn't kill as many people as they might have. And they went quieter, and we might get rid of them yet. That's the best you can say about them.

[elucidator]

You didn't answer my question: the evil done in our name, is that a direct result of our ideology?

[LonesomePolecat]

You didn't answer my question: the evil done in our name, is that a direct result of our ideology?
So all you've got is the old "we're-no-better-than-they-are" moral equivalency gambit?

[elucidator]

Not quite. Not a bit, actually. If you suggest that an ideology is inherently evil, and use as proof the evil things done by that ideologies adherents (again, without even going into whether such men as Stalin and Mao were ideologues or simply monsters...) then aren't you compelled to ask the same question of ourselves? We are inheritors of the most noble ideology the world as ever seen, and yet...

[LonesomePolecat]

Not quite. Not a bit, actually. If you suggest that an ideology is inherently evil, and use as proof the evil things done by that ideologies adherents (again, without even going into whether such men as Stalin and Mao were ideologues or simply monsters...) then aren't you compelled to ask the same question of ourselves? We are inheritors of the most noble ideology the world as ever seen, and yet...
... and yet we did not amass a pile of one hundred million corpses.

[Fear Itself]

... and yet we did not amass a pile of one hundred million corpses.Yes, our pile is somewhat smaller. Good for us!

[Mr. Moto]

Compared to the Somoza regime, I ask again? Compared to regimes as noted above, regimes that we fostered and supported? Have we some cause for pride in such men as Trujillo, Batista, Somoza, Uguarte, and a list as long as your arm? Is it our ideology that is to blame?

There is an important difference, isn't there?

(Please note, my discussion here involves some leftists and leftist groups, and probably excepts present company.)

The failing of some politicians or leaders or policy makers or opinion leaders in dealing with some of the strongmen you noted wasn't that anybody fell for their act. Everybody knew they were bastards. Everybody knew there were folks in the prisons that shouldn't be there.

The problem was that, early on, very few countries in the world were at all democratic, and even the ones that were weren't terribly enlightened when it came to the treatment of people who weren't of the right sort.

Later on, of course, that excuse didn't wash as well, but we still had the problem that sometimes you had to, on realistic grounds, deal with the bastard who was there. Maybe you didn't put him there, but there he was, and to get your ore or bananas or whatnot you cut a deal. Besides, you were in a part of the world without a democratic tradition anyway, so what's the difference.

After that, of course, it changed, and you shifted to supporting the guy, giving him arms, and even willingly supporting him against other guys perhaps more legitimate for the job. Now, however reprehensible this was (and it was plenty) it was done with eyes wide open, and it was done with the expectation that another guy there would have been a sicker nastier exploiter of his people and worse would have shipped the revolution next door. As nasty as these autocrats were, for the most part they stayed put, which we liked just fine.

Now, there is much to criticize here, and we could write a book, probably (although several have been written already, so I'll pass). But the Left is different in a very important way, especially in its heyday. While the Right usually didn't lose sight of the fact that they were backing bad guys, the Left would delude themselves periodically into thinking they were backing good guys.

College students would form little Maoist cliques, or call Chairman Ho the George Washington of his people, or put Che Guevara on tee shirts. Hell, Cameron Diaz just got stung with this, she wore a bag with Maoist slogans in Peru and upset plenty of people, especially since the Shining Path were inspired by Mao.

(I do realize Cameron Diaz isn't any kind of Communist, but it is a funny world where kind of bag would be trendy. It ought to be treated like a bag with a swastika - essentially like the Peruvians treated it.)

Back to the timeline of the OP here, Stalin had a lot of people in the 1930s thinking he was the wave of the future. Walter Duranty defended both his agricultural policies and his show trials in supposedly unbiased articles in the New York Times.

So there you go. It is the difference between supporting a bastard because you think you have no choice, or because you think you can get some good out of it, or supporting a bastard because you think he's the next George Washington.

Now, personally, I'd prefer to find George Washingtons. Affter that, though, I'd like to make my decisions, even if they are unpleasant ones, clearheadedly.

And that does not mean waving a red book around.

[RedFury]

... and yet we did not amass a pile of one hundred million corpses.

Perhaps so, and certainly not within your country. But within your sphere of influence you're certainly responsible for quite a number of corpses. (http://home.iprimus.com.au/korob/fdtcards/Cards_Index.html)

No gilding the lily around those facts.

Mote, beam, eye and all that....

[Little Plastic Ninja]

Wow.

I'm finding myself agreeing (somewhat) with both Mr. Moto and John Mace in GD. I'm going to have to turn in my pinko liberal card.

Back when I was about ten years old -- I don't remember how old exactly, only that I was a wee mite -- a group came to my school and asked us what we thought our perfect government would be. After some discussion amongst ourselves, we all came to the conclusion that racism was bad and that starving people needed food and homeless people needed homes and everyone needed jobs and money wasn't important. People should share like they taught us in kindergarten.

That's great, said the group. You've just described communism.

Now, as a parcel of red-blooded American children, we were quite shocked. We knew communism was the Russians and they were Bad and Un-American. We set about trying to find a way to fund all the programs we thought necessary and ended up taxing our citizenry at 50% at best. We were quite distraught. I, at least, came out of there with a keener understanding of capitalism and why we have it.

When I was in college, I lived in a co-op. I highly suggest the lifestyle, especially to a college aged person -- they're called the poor man's fraternities for a reason. Some are more studious than others (we only had the OCCASIONAL party until four in the morning. Like, just twice a semester or so) and some are larger than others but they all work on the same system: you pay vanishingly small amounts of money for rent and utilities and food (as I recall, a single room about the size of a standard American bedroom goes for $650/month including food, utilities, the whole shebang. Having a roommate makes things much cheaper) and you do chores around the house to keep it reasonable. You might cook two nights a week for the whole house or clean the living room a few times. You might sweep. If you failed to do a duty you had to pay someone else to do it or trade with them. I think the going rate was $10/hour for most housework. Bigger tasks included everyone, and you had to take part or you were penalized somehow -- you had to do some other unpleasant task by yourself, for example. I once missed a big day of work for some reason and ended up scrubbing paint drips off the front porch.

It was communal living. We all did our work not just because we wanted it done but because everyone else wanted it done, too. If you didn't do your task you'd be taken to task -- heh -- by someone else because they wanted to live in a clean house. In a limited sense, it can work.

I just don't think that it can work on a grand scale. We could kick people out of the co-op for not working. We could get rid of a psychotic autocrat and break away from the main group if we seriously thought they were a bunch of jerks. There was no nuclear option in the ICC.

Moto, you're right in that we liberals are often very idealistic. We don't knowingly make deals with the Devil because, well, he's the Devil. So we convince ourselves that he's not the Devil much. Conservative folk are willing to do so for long-term stability, but as we all know it don't always work.

But I believe that it's possible to believe in a socialist ideology of equality and food and housing and clothing and health care for everyone without being evil. If a person thinks that's what communism is, they might well love their country so much that they believed this system was better.

[Bryan Ekers]

Perhaps so, and certainly not within your country. But within your sphere of influence you're certainly responsible for quite a number of corpses. (http://home.iprimus.com.au/korob/fdtcards/Cards_Index.html)

No gilding the lily around those facts.

Mote, beam, eye and all that....

Okay, if the U.S. is evil, what countries, if any, have ever qualified as good?


I can never seem to get a firm answer to this.

[Mr. Moto]

Okay, if the U.S. is evil, what countries, if any, have ever qualified as good?

Isn't it obvious? The answer is no country at all!

You must either skip off dreamily whilst singing "Imagine" or march away shouting the "Internationale".

[John Mace]

When I was in college, I lived in a co-op. I highly suggest the lifestyle, especially to a college aged person -- they're called the poor man's fraternities for a reason. Some are more studious than others (we only had the OCCASIONAL party until four in the morning. Like, just twice a semester or so) and some are larger than others but they all work on the same system: you pay vanishingly small amounts of money for rent and utilities and food (as I recall, a single room about the size of a standard American bedroom goes for $650/month including food, utilities, the whole shebang. Having a roommate makes things much cheaper) and you do chores around the house to keep it reasonable. You might cook two nights a week for the whole house or clean the living room a few times. You might sweep. If you failed to do a duty you had to pay someone else to do it or trade with them. I think the going rate was $10/hour for most housework. Bigger tasks included everyone, and you had to take part or you were penalized somehow -- you had to do some other unpleasant task by yourself, for example. I once missed a big day of work for some reason and ended up scrubbing paint drips off the front porch.

It was communal living. We all did our work not just because we wanted it done but because everyone else wanted it done, too. If you didn't do your task you'd be taken to task -- heh -- by someone else because they wanted to live in a clean house. In a limited sense, it can work.

I just don't think that it can work on a grand scale. We could kick people out of the co-op for not working. We could get rid of a psychotic autocrat and break away from the main group if we seriously thought they were a bunch of jerks. There was no nuclear option in the ICC.
That's about how I see it. I've lived in those types of arrangements, too, and they can work pretty well on a small scale (as I noted earlier).

However, there is an interesting lesson to be learned here. In a society with a capitalist economy you are free to self-organize as a communist at whatever scale you so choose-- be it a family, a club, a company, or even a whole town. In a country with a communist economy, you could not self-organize as a capitalist, since you are not able to own property or "the means of production". (I suppose that no actual communist country outlawed all property ownership, but if people in a society are allowed to acquire substantial amounts of property, then that society cannot be said to be operating on a communist model.) A communist country that allowed unlimited ownership of property would probably be transformed into a capitalist society in no time.

[elucidator]

...You must either skip off dreamily whilst singing "Imagine" or march away shouting the "Internationale"....

Or do neither. Live with the facts of what humans are, and what they are capable of, and not try to blame an ideology, which has not hands, nor wills, to bloody.

Moto, what grave threat was posed by the Nicaraguan revolution, or Guatemala, or any of them? Cuba has survived, are we dead? Outside of a vital resource of bananas, what threat was posed to justify the brutality? You posit that I might be grateful for the hard-headed realists who dealt with the Devil in order to make us secure, I am not, I curse thier cynicism. In the words of Jefferson:"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just."

And why is this sauce of forgiveness exclusive to the goose, and not the gander? Why is it that the Sandanistas cannot lay claim to such realism to escape guilt? Why couldn't they say, as you do, that we did what we must, we dealt with bad guys in order to preserve ourselves from a worse evil? We did evil things, yes, but only to protect ourselves from an evil ideology, you say, why can't they make the same claim?

[RedFury]

Isn't it obvious? The answer is no country at all!

You must either skip off dreamily whilst singing "Imagine" or march away shouting the "Internationale".

Actually, your second paragraph was needless. You got it in one in the first. Talking Empires here, and history certainly does repeat itself. Certainly not a good record by any account. Ironically though, as a kid/young man, I was expecting better from yours. Just comes to show how youth is wasted on the young.

And Bryan, like it or not, can you refute what's on that page? Because I've actually lived through some of it -- Trujillo and Franco, as bloody and vengeful as dictators get no matter what side they are on.

Cheers?

[RedFury]

Disclaimer: I wasn't directly affected by either regime due both to family influences and a tender age. Doesn't mean I am not aware of the atrocities that happened in both. It's a matter of historical record anyway.

[Mr. Moto]

Moto, what grave threat was posed by the Nicaraguan revolution, or Guatemala, or any of them? Cuba has survived, are we dead?

Let me pose some questions in return, especially given your admiration of the Sandinistas earlier for their (partial) relinquishing of power.

Lots of people fought alongside Castro in the hopes that Cuba after Batista would be democratic. How many free elections has Cuba held in the nearly fifty years since, and how many former Castro allies wound up later dead, imprisoned, or in Miami?

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

[Mr. Moto]

And why is this sauce of forgiveness exclusive to the goose, and not the gander? Why is it that the Sandanistas cannot lay claim to such realism to escape guilt? Why couldn't they say, as you do, that we did what we must, we dealt with bad guys in order to preserve ourselves from a worse evil? We did evil things, yes, but only to protect ourselves from an evil ideology, you say, why can't they make the same claim?

Accountability.

Democratic governments are (however imperfectly) accountably to their citizens for their failings. Nondemocratic governments aren't accountable at all. And the Sandinistas through their actions have insulated themselves from a great deal of accountability - please note what I (and Freedom House) said above about their control of a corrupt judiciary.

[RedFury]

Let me pose some questions in return, especially given your admiration of the Sandinistas earlier for their (partial) relinquishing of power.

Lots of people fought alongside Castro in the hopes that Cuba after Batista would be democratic. How many free elections has Cuba held in the nearly fifty years since, and how many former Castro allies wound up later dead, imprisoned, or in Miami?

Obviously I am not 'luc, but I'd like to take a stab at this.

Moto, what grave threat was posed by the Nicaraguan revolution, or Guatemala, or any of them? Cuba has survived, are we dead? Outside of a vital resource of bananas, what threat was posed to justify the brutality?

First off, your lack of response to the prior questions posed to you in luc's post is rather telling. As in having no reasonable answer to it. Secondly, I'll let Fidel himself answer your query -- in a round about way:

They talk about the failure of socialism but where is the success of capitalism in Africa, Asia and Latin America?

And more question for you Sir Moto, is there a Cuban mafia in Miami? If so, pray tell, whom do you think it is composed of?

[elucidator]

Vigorous entrepreneurship.

[Bryan Ekers]

And Bryan, like it or not, can you refute what's on that page? Because I've actually lived through some of it -- Trujillo and Franco, as bloody and vengeful as dictators get no matter what side they are on.Oh, I wouldn't even dream of trying, since it's utterly irrelevant to my unanswered question. I'll cheerfully stipulate that any given microsecond in the existence of the U.S. is a million billion trillion times worse than the combined decades of Nazi Germany, Mao's China and the Soviet Union.

Now that that's out of the way, I'll try again: what nation, if any, has ever qualified as a good nation? I'd like to know if success is even possible under the implied criteria.

[denquixote]

Okay, if the U.S. is evil, what countries, if any, have ever qualified as good?


I can never seem to get a firm answer to this.

I would say many of the Scandinavian countries and the Nertherlands, perhaps some of the pacific Island nations but what difference does it make? every nation is different and each has its own problems. you seem to think that because there is a zero success rate for communism so far that it cannot prove successful under any circumstances. The fact is that capitalism, while an older and more established philosophy than communism, does not, given the current state of the world, appear to be the be-all and end-all that its adherents claim.

Yes the communist countries of the past have made major errors and performed some horrendous acts although i would argue that it was the leaders of those countries who were responsible and performed them as much to maintain their own power as to advance any idealistic cause.

But, I would argue that, as the size of the globe becomes smaller and smaller vis a vis its population, and as the populace continues to deplete the world's supply of energy and other materials, some form of communism will become the only way to maintain order and continue the existence of humans on this planet. I don't think it will be in my lifetime, but capitalism and the concurrent need to exploit are ultimately doomed.

[Mr. Moto]

you seem to think that because there is a zero success rate for communism so far that it cannot prove successful under any circumstances. The fact is that capitalism, while an older and more established philosophy than communism, does not, given the current state of the world, appear to be the be-all and end-all that its adherents claim.

We have seen the nightmares that false utopias turn out to be here on earth. Personally, I will look for paradise in the hereafter, not here.

[Bryan Ekers]

I would say many of the Scandinavian countries and the Nertherlands, perhaps some of the pacific Island nations but what difference does it make?Well, the difference is between saying capitalism is evil (and there might be some valid arguments along those lines) and saying humanity is evil (which doesn't really lead anywhere). When I ask for an example of a "good" country, I'm trying to establish where the claimant stands.
you seem to think that because there is a zero success rate for communism so far that it cannot prove successful under any circumstances. I'm always willing to be surprised. Heck, I've gladly admitted in past threads on this topic (there have been many) that communism can work in relatively small communities based on agriculture or simple industry. It just fails when the structures get sufficiently complex that a permanent bureaucracy is required. Centralized control of production inevitably turns into control of the population. If you like, I could round up a bunch of links where this discussion has been extensively hashed out (if not beaten to death).
The fact is that capitalism, while an older and more established philosophy than communism, does not, given the current state of the world, appear to be the be-all and end-all that its adherents claim. Isn't immigration one of the best indicators of what constitutes the "be-all and end-all"? As I understand it, waiting lists to get into the U.S., Canada, the U.K.... (heck, the entire G7), are pretty long. How many people are voting with their feet and trying to get Chinese citizenship?Yes the communist countries of the past have made major errors and performed some horrendous acts although i would argue that it was the leaders of those countries who were responsible and performed them as much to maintain their own power as to advance any idealistic cause.

But, I would argue that, as the size of the globe becomes smaller and smaller vis a vis its population, and as the populace continues to deplete the world's supply of energy and other materials, some form of communism will become the only way to maintain order and continue the existence of humans on this planet. I don't think it will be in my lifetime, but capitalism and the concurrent need to exploit are ultimately doomed.I just hope it's not within my lifetime, and I intend to live forever or die trying. I'm looking forward to controlled fusion, lunar colonies, space elevators, flying cars, nanotech... frankly, I'm extremely optimistic about the future and I expect the capitalist democracies to lead the way.

[elucidator]

Accountability.

Democratic governments are (however imperfectly) accountably to their citizens for their failings. Nondemocratic governments aren't accountable at all. And the Sandinistas through their actions have insulated themselves from a great deal of accountability - please note what I (and Freedom House) said above about their control of a corrupt judiciary.
Under the present circumstances as they apply to our country, I cannot help but wonder if you are not indulging in some droll irony.

[elucidator]

Let me pose some questions in return, especially given your admiration of the Sandinistas earlier for their (partial) relinquishing of power....
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
The history of the betrayal of revolutions goes back long before Marx was even a gleam in his fathers means of production. I've heard something to the effect that power corrupts, I don't recall any specific reference that communist power being more corruptive than any other.

But no matter. If you are eager to have me confess that, yes, indeed, many Communists are very bad people, I so stipulate, and await whatever conclusion you may base on this.

Now, if you have no further questions...what grave threat was posed by the leftist revolutions in Guatemala, or Nicaragua, or El Salvador, such that a deal with brutal and vicious regimes was essential for the survival of our nation?

[Bryan Ekers]

I've heard something to the effect that power corrupts, I don't recall any specific reference that communist power being more corruptive than any other.Wouldn't the centralizing of power tend to do that more than a decentralized structure? At the very least, if someone in the power structure is corrupt, he has a lot more potential to inflict damage than some corporate goon.

[Mr. Moto]

Under the present circumstances as they apply to our country, I cannot help but wonder if you are not indulging in some droll irony.

I wonder the same about you, since you rail against the Bush administration so, but when far worse Sandinista abuses are pointed out to you, from an organization I presume you trust, it seems to sail by.

Far as I know, Bush hasn't raped any 11 year old girls.

[elucidator]

Well, of course. But this is common to all authoritarian regimes. Caligula was not a Communist.

[denquixote]

We have seen the nightmares that false utopias turn out to be here on earth. Personally, I will look for paradise in the hereafter, not here.


well, you are wasting your time bud, but that is for the atheist thread.

[denquixote]

Well, the difference is between saying capitalism is evil (and there might be some valid arguments along those lines) and saying humanity is evil (which doesn't really lead anywhere). When I ask for an example of a "good" country, I'm trying to establish where the claimant stands.
I'm always willing to be surprised. Heck, I've gladly admitted in past threads on this topic (there have been many) that communism can work in relatively small communities based on agriculture or simple industry. It just fails when the structures get sufficiently complex that a permanent bureaucracy is required. Centralized control of production inevitably turns into control of the population. If you like, I could round up a bunch of links where this discussion has been extensively hashed out (if not beaten to death).
Isn't immigration one of the best indicators of what constitutes the "be-all and end-all"? As I understand it, waiting lists to get into the U.S., Canada, the U.K.... (heck, the entire G7), are pretty long. How many people are voting with their feet and trying to get Chinese citizenship?I just hope it's not within my lifetime, and I intend to live forever or die trying. I'm looking forward to controlled fusion, lunar colonies, space elevators, flying cars, nanotech... frankly, I'm extremely optimistic about the future and I expect the capitalist democracies to lead the way.

and I am happy if i get my shirts back from the laundry with light starch. good luck to you.

[elucidator]

I wonder the same about you, since you rail against the Bush administration so, but when far worse Sandinista abuses are pointed out to you, from an organization I presume you trust, it seems to sail by.

Far as I know, Bush hasn't raped any 11 year old girls.
Yes, yes, Daniel Ortega is a very bad man, and I am a blithe hypocrite, which proves for certain that Communism is inherently evil. Got it.

Now, about that question?

[Mr. Moto]

Which question are you referring to?

If you are referring to the different treatment of authoritarian regimes vice totalitarian ones, see my longish answer above. A more eloquent justification for this practice can, of course, be found in the writings of Jeanne Kirkpatrick.

Realism as a foreign policy concept is pretty well understood, and while I think it is misplaced sometimes, I also realize it is often the best (or only) course.

As for your question of the threat posed to us by various and sundry revolutions, I do not think you can look at them individually or in isolation. There was a Cold War going on at the time, and the Soviet Union was doing its level best to extend its influence in as many places as it could in the world.

[LonesomePolecat]

Perhaps so, and certainly not within your country. But within your sphere of influence you're certainly responsible for quite a number of corpses. (http://home.iprimus.com.au/korob/fdtcards/Cards_Index.html)

No gilding the lily around those facts.

Mote, beam, eye and all that....
You miss the point entirely. It does not matter what the United States has done.

The point is that liberals, radicals, progressives, or whatever you want to call yourselves cannot reasonably claim the moral high ground when you are yourselves standing on a far bigger pile of corpses than the people you are presume to condemn. It reeks of hypocrisy.

As for your link, in war and politics you often have deal with characters you would never take home to meet your mom. The mere fact that we have accepted someone as an ally doesn't mean that we are entirely responsible for everything that ally does; our support for Stalin in the Second World War doesn't mean that we are therefore responsible for everything Stalin ever did, and our support for the mujahadeen in their war against the Soviet Union doesn't mean we are responsible for everything the mujahadeen did.

You are free to complain about American perfidy only because dangerous men stand ready to do violence on your behalf. Our nation--and for that matter, Western civilization itself--will be allowed to exist only so long as we are willing and able to shed and spill blood for our right to exist. Any other attitude is sheer delusion.

[LonesomePolecat]

you seem to think that because there is a zero success rate for communism so far that it cannot prove successful under any circumstances.
So we're just supposed to go on trying to create communist societies no matter how often and how badly they fail and no matter how many people die in the attempt? We're not supposed to look at their track record at all?

And is the only choice between hard core Marxist-Leninist communism and 19th century robber baron capitalism?

[LonesomePolecat]

Or do neither. Live with the facts of what humans are, and what they are capable of, and not try to blame an ideology, which has not hands, nor wills, to bloody.
It isn't simply a question of human nature. Bad ideology will necessarily drive you to do bad things. Mussolini is less objectionable than Hitler precisely because Mussolini's ideology did not lead him to commit such horrors as the Holocaust. Gandhi's tactics could work with the British; they would never have worked with Stalin, and the difference is a matter of ideology. Ideas matter.
Moto, what grave threat was posed by the Nicaraguan revolution, or Guatemala, or any of them?You seriously don't believe the Soviet Union was using these movements to increase its influence in the Western hemisphere?

[Cervaise]

The point is that liberals, radicals, progressives, or whatever you want to call yourselves cannot reasonably claim the moral high ground when you are yourselves standing on a far bigger pile of corpses than the people you are presume to condemn.Actually, the real point is that you're fooling yourself if you actually believe there is a moral high ground.It isn't simply a question of human nature. Bad ideology will necessarily drive you to do bad things.It is very much a question of human nature. Current events demonstrate that good ideology is no barrier to bad acts.

The only difference between us and angry chimpanzees is that we are able to offer, after the fact, a dizzying array of justifications for why we brought the thighbone down on the skull of our enemy.

[elucidator]

....As for your question of the threat posed to us by various and sundry revolutions, I do not think you can look at them individually or in isolation. There was a Cold War going on at the time, and the Soviet Union was doing its level best to extend its influence in as many places as it could in the world.
I see, so this is the grave threat posed, so grave a threat that we are compelled to compromise our moral values and make deals with men we know to be brutal and sadistic tyrants. Only way to protect ourselves, doncha know. At one time, "Yes, we have no bananas" was a humorous ditty meant to amuse, it could well have been a dirge of sorrow and dismay, as a banana-less nation munches morosely on kiwi fruit. Alas! Cry, the beloved country!

The domino effect again? The remorseless drive of Soviet Communism up the Central American peninsula: Guatemala, Nicaragua, Mexico, and then on to Texas....Well, maybe not Texas, but surely California! With it's festering nest of Filth Columnists seething in Berkeley...and the Tortilla Curtain descends!

For this grave threat, we had no choice but to make deals with evil men, to ignore the murder of nuns and archbishops. If people are to be oppresssed and murdered, its better they are oppressed and murdered by a moral system, one not tainted with the grave depravity of Communism. No doubt, this was an enormous comfort to them. How happy they must have been, nestled snugly in their graves, that they were safe from the ghastly threat of Godless Communism.

[elucidator]

...You seriously don't believe the Soviet Union was using these movements to increase its influence in the Western hemisphere?
Sure. But we didn't have to let them. If we had used our influence wisely, we would have addressed the conditions that make revolution attractive, rather than arming villains to suppress them.

Wouldn't you? If you were as oppressed as these people were, wouldn't you rise up in insurrection? And then, wouldn't you take arms and assistance from anyone who offered it, regardless of whether or not you knew a dialectic from a hole in the ground?

[Mr. Moto]

Let me pose a question to you, elucidator.

During the American Civil War, the Confederates were praying for Great Britain to attack the North while it was weakened, and they toyed with the idea. Had that happened, they would likely have been joined by France, which had its own scores to settle.

One European nation was especially steadfast in its support of the United States at that time, going so far as to station warships in New York and San Francisco for months at a time. The message was sent pretty clearly that entry into the war would bring this country in as well, and the conflict remained an American one.

This country was Czarist Russia.

Now, should Lincoln have refused the help?

[Ludovic]

Let me pose a question to you, elucidator.

During the American Civil War, the Confederates were praying for Great Britain to attack the North while it was weakened, and they toyed with the idea. Had that happened, they would likely have been joined by France, which had its own scores to settle.

One European nation was especially steadfast in its support of the United States at that time, going so far as to station warships in New York and San Francisco for months at a time. The message was sent pretty clearly that entry into the war would bring this country in as well, and the conflict remained an American one.

This country was Czarist Russia.

Now, should Lincoln have refused the help?Getting help from regimes you don't agree with != helping regimes you don't agree with. The help tells you more about the nature of how the giver sees the recipient than vice versa.

Heck, even if we wanted to, America was in no position at the time to overthrow 19th century Russia. Heck, we still probably wouldn't be in a position to overthrow 19th century Russia.

[LonesomePolecat]

Sure. But we didn't have to let them. If we had used our influence wisely, we would have addressed the conditions that make revolution attractive, rather than arming villains to suppress them.

Wouldn't you? If you were as oppressed as these people were, wouldn't you rise up in insurrection? And then, wouldn't you take arms and assistance from anyone who offered it, regardless of whether or not you knew a dialectic from a hole in the ground?
What do you mean by "addressing the conditions?" Was the United States supposed to eliminate poverty throughout the Americas? Were we supposed to overthrow every tinpot tyrant and install Western style democracies? It's all very well to say that we should have "addressed the conditions," but this is a tremendous conceit. It assumes that we have some kind of unlimited power to create healthy, prosperous economies and stable, democratic states. It implies that governments in Latin America have a right to exist only on our sufferance and that the United States is somehow responsible if a repressive state exists anywhere in the Americas--the non-Communist ones, anyway. That calls for an awful lot of meddling.

We have a bad enough time trying to keep our own economy and government on some kind of even keel. Look at what we had to do to get rid of slavery, to get rid of Jim Crow, to put an end to child labor and get the average working stiff a halfway decent break. Were we supposed to do all that in every county in the western hemisphere as well--and wouldn't that make us the de facto government of two continents?

Give me some idea of exactly what "conditions" you wanted us to address and how the hell were we supposed to address them without meddling far more than we actually did meddle, and maybe you would have some kind of point. All you've got here is a vague, noble-sounding abstraction.

[LonesomePolecat]

The domino effect again? The remorseless drive of Soviet Communism up the Central American peninsula: Guatemala, Nicaragua, Mexico, and then on to Texas....Well, maybe not Texas, but surely California! With it's festering nest of Filth Columnists seething in Berkeley...and the Tortilla Curtain descends! The danger from the Soviet Union, particularly during the days of the Stalinist regime and its immediate aftermath, was every bit as real as the danger from Nazi Germany. You can't sneer that fact away. It would be easier to respect your position if you would stop resorting to mockery and ridicule as a substitute for actual arguments.

[tomndebb]

The danger from the Soviet Union, particularly during the days of the Stalinist regime and its immediate aftermath, was every bit as real as the danger from Nazi Germany. You can't sneer that fact away.Actually,I have never seen any evidence that this is true. Stalin was very much into protecting himself and Russia and showed no serious interest in promoting worldwide Communism. His efforts in Eastern Europe provided him a buffer from future attacks, and he never made a serious effort to extend the Soviet empire beyond the Warsaw Pact countries. The nations he kept directly under his thumb were the nations contiguous to the U.S.S.R. His efforts in Austria and Greece were, at best, half-hearted. Tito was able to get out from under his direct rule because of the buffers of Romania and Bulgaria.

As a world power with nuclear capability, the U.S.S.R. was clearly a danger if enough politicians on both sides behaved stupidly, but unlike Nazi Germany, the U.S.S.R. never demonstrated a desire to actually conquer all of Europe or the Middle East.

As the U.S. and U.S.S.R. played their updated version of the Great Game, they threatened each other and world peace, but it was based on mutual suspicion and animosity rather than on Hitler's desire for conquest.

[elucidator]

Let me pose a question to you, elucidator....Now, should Lincoln have refused the help?
You got me, Moto. Clearly, Lincoln had no choice but to knuckle under to the massive Slavic war machine. And this leads inexorably to the conclusion that we had no other option but to support brutal dictatorial regimes to protect ourselves from the crushing power of Soviet hegemony. An argument so clearly articulated and firmly established is unanswerable.

I am undone.

[elucidator]

What do you mean by "addressing the conditions?" .... All you've got here is a vague, noble-sounding abstraction.
Perhaps. Shouldn't we have at least tried? Too big a risk? Well, after all, Cuba has been Commie as all get-out for better than 50 years now and yet, we survive. If United Fruit Company were nationalized, and the price of bananas doubled, would our economy have collapsed into ruins?

A "vague, noble-sounding abstraction"? I suppose, in comparison to an entirely concrete, utterly real tale of horror and death, visited upon the innocent in our name, with our money.

But, no matter. Moto has already crushed my argument under the grinding wheels of his rhetorical juggernaut. I only hope to blink back the tears long enough to complete this butter sculpture of St. Ronnie in time for the State Fair. Whoa is me.

[Mr. Moto]

Hardly at all. I just need you to articulate more clearly when it is permissable to deal with nasty regimes (and Czarist Russia was kinda nasty) and when it is not, and what form that cooperation might take.

You seem to be all over the map here, frankly. So am I, BTW, but at least I am openly admitting that these things have to be approached situationally, weighing the options at hand, and even then spectacular mistakes sometimes are made.

[tomndebb]

Your debate tactics are unpersuasive, elucidator, particularly when you ignore the fact that Mr. Moto provided exactly the justification for the actions of the Sandinistas. After having the U.S. stomp on Nicaraguan sovereignty for 30 of the first 40 years of the 20th century, the U.S. allowed Somoza to become dictator, then armed and trained his suppressive National Guard for the next 36 years. If one was a patriot of Nicaragua and was offered aid from ther U.S.S.R. to reclaim one's country, were they morally obligated to refuse it simply because the "good" nation was helping arm the oppressors?

We did not owe the Nicaraguans aid to raise crops or pay bills. We owed them a true execution of the Monroe Doctrine that would have kept all foreign intervention (especially ours) out of their land in order to let them solve (or create) their own problems. Once we abrogated that trust, they had a perfect right to seek to throw off our bonds. (We also had an opportunity to help the Sandinistas in 1979, thus edging out the Cubans (not the Russians) from establishing their priorities in the country. Instead, we used the presence of the Cubans to rationalize the re-arming of the murderous National Guard.

I am no fan of the Ortegas, particularly in light of the depradations against the Mosquito people, but it is a bit hypocritical of us to claim that we "had" to fight them (using the thugs we had financed for 30 odd years) when we never even made the attempt to co-opt them to politically or financially.

[RedFury]

You miss the point entirely.It does not matter what the United States has done. -- highlights mine.

I'll be darned. So the US gets a free get out of jail card er...because it's the United States. Isn't that swell. And not hint of jingoism to boot.

So much for "debating."

[elucidator]

... but at least I am openly admitting that these things have to be approached situationally, weighing the options at hand, and even then spectacular mistakes sometimes are made.
You're not making an admission here, Moto, that is the substance of that argument. It is hardly a concession to aver, once again, what you have already argued. And as for your suggestion that "mistake were made", well, yes. But there is a difference between a blunder and a policy enforced over decades. You are simply being honest enough to admit that you are right. Swell.

We ought not to have done it, and when it showed signs of failure, we doubled down. Sound familiar?

[Mr. Moto]

But all indications show (correct me if I am wrong) that you would have favored a thaw in relations with Castro.

Again, when was the last free election in Cuba?

Sounds like you would have made your own policy choices. I see no evidence they would have led to much of a difference - except for one thing, perhaps. The dictators would have been left-wingers, and there would have been a pack of idiots running around with pictures of them on their T-shirts.

[elucidator]

Of course I do. But it has little to do with the ideology of the regime, and everything to do with not punishing the people of Cuba for our (rather puny) disagreements with the regime. IMHO, we would have had more cordial relations with Cuba long, long ago were it not for the need for Pubbies to pander to the virulently anti-Castro Cuban community in Florida. We have trade relations and diplomatic relations with Viet Nam, what have they done to deserve our approval, outside of manufacturing sneaks? They have free elections in China? Doesn't seem to bother us much there, outside of the occassional empty gesture.

The best way to convince people to be more like the Americans is to be more like the Americans ourselves.

[Cervaise]

The best way to convince people to be more like the Americans is to be more like the Americans ourselves.Or, rather, to better represent the American ideal, because as it stands we're doing a fine job of being like the arrogant, aggressive, belligerent American stereotype so commonly perceived.

The down side of this approach is that it requires patience. Looking at Cuba, or North Korea, or Iran, or whichever dysfunctional state you want to consider, the people currently in power are proud and stubborn and will not, while they live, mend their ways regardless of the incentives offered. They need to be displaced, or, better yet, they need to die off so the youth of the disaffected and oppressed classes can have an opportunity for reform. We must be a model for them, and we must encourage them, but most of all we have to wait for them. This is slow, and frustrating, and fraught with potential setbacks and delays.

The up side of the approach, though, is that you do not, by your actions, make things worse.

The up side of the interventionist approach — as advocated in the present War Against Militant Islam by the current U.S. administration and its defenders, or by past hawks who used Vietnam and Afghanistan as proxy fronts against Commie Nogoodniks — is that you see immediate results, you don't have to be patient, you go out and Get Shit Done. You don't need to let the bad guys collapse as a result of their own corruption and inherent malignance. You poke a weak spot, and they fall over.

The down side is that in the long run, for various reasons, you almost always make things worse, and sooner or later you find yourself more or less back where you started.

Look at North Korea. Years of the "Sunshine Policy" was having little apparent effect beyond holding the status quo. Then comes Bush, impatient with the lack of progress, who implements the "Fuck You Bouffant Weirdo" policy, and things rapidly begin to get worse. Eventually, cooler heads prevailed, and we're now back to a minor variant on the Sunshine approach, which means slow — frustratingly, agonizingly slow — progress... but progress at any speed is preferable to calamitous regression.

Castro's never going to schedule a free and fair election. Ever. Not while he draws breath. But as long as we don't do anything pointlessly stupid, we have a chance at influencing the people who will follow him after he croaks.

We need to think in generational terms, like the Chinese do. We need to stop trying to treat foreign policy like a microwave oven, dancing hungrily in front of the flickering light because we're starving for Hot Pockets. You and I may not see the fruits of our efforts; but that's fine, because even if we don't, we need to make it possible for our grandchildren, and the grandchildren of today's enemies, to reconcile. And pounding our chests like baboons is precisely the wrong way to go about it.

[Shodan]

Or, rather, to better represent the American ideal, because as it stands we're doing a fine job of being like the arrogant, aggressive, belligerent American stereotype so commonly perceived.I thought there was no moral high ground from which anyone could be criticized.

Oh yes, I forgot - that only applies to the US.
Look at North Korea. Years of the "Sunshine Policy" was having little apparent effect beyond holding the status quo. Then comes Bush, impatient with the lack of progress, who implements the "Fuck You Bouffant Weirdo" policy, and things rapidly begin to get worse. Eventually, cooler heads prevailed, and we're now back to a minor variant on the Sunshine approach, which means slow — frustratingly, agonizingly slow — progress... but progress at any speed is preferable to calamitous regression.
Could you describe the status quo that was being held from about 1950- 2001? I mean in terms of nuclear proliferation, firing off missiles, (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east/08/20/nkorea.timeline.nuclear/)violations of the DMZ (http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9604/06/korea/index.html), famines (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/august97/korea_8-26.html), and the like.

Regards,
Shodan

[elucidator]

One simply cannot mention reflect upon our support of Syngman Rhee - egalitarian and visionary of democracy - without a swell of pride. Stand aside, Jefferson. Put a sock in it, Paine. Behold the man!

Well, maybe not so much....

[Mr. Moto]

One simply cannot mention reflect upon our support of Syngman Rhee - egalitarian and visionary of democracy - without a swell of pride. Stand aside, Jefferson. Put a sock in it, Paine. Behold the man!

Well, maybe not so much....

I think we can be proud of that.

For all of the problems South Korea's military rulers may have had, they did grow their country's economy and permit some measure of freedom. Moreover, the alternative to them at the time was pretty clear, and Kim il-Sung was one of history's nastier figures, I'm sure you will agree.

You expressed considerable admiration above for the Sandinistas permitting elections and then relinquishing power. Surely some appreciation ought to be shown for the South Korean junta that did the same thing in 1987 - indeed, they went considerably firther than the Sandinistas did.

South Korea today is prosperous and free. Nicaragua isn't prosperous, and is only partially free.

So why should we be ashamed of supporting Syngman Rhee?

[Mr. Moto]

I think your arguments here are no longer coherent, elucidator. When you attempt to insult your opponents here, you merely point to the hollowness of your own position.

[dropzone]

For all of the problems South Korea's military rulers may have had, they did grow their country's economy and permit some measure of freedom.And they DID make the trains run on time!

Okay, I have no idea whether trains are more punctual in South or North Korea. I just couldn't help myself. :(

Could you describe the status quo that was being held from about 1950- 2001? I mean in terms of nuclear proliferation, firing off missiles, violations of the DMZ, famines, and the like.Well, there were the development of the technologies that later gave them missiles and the Bomb, the occasional violation of the DMZ because the Kims were and are jerks, and ditto for famines. What has been the fairly consistent status quo from 1953 to now has been the patience Cervaise describes. We and both Korean sides sit parked on the DMZ, generally hoping nobody does anything stupid. Unlike in Iraq, except for the isolated incidents I mentioned, nobody has. In the mean time, Kim Jung Il hasn't set up an obvious successor so, when his high living almost inevitably catches up with him (says the 400lb 53-yr-old with blood pressure in the normal range :) ), there is a good chance somebody a bit less jerkish will take over, just as we have Raul Castro slowly taking the baton from Fidel's hand.

In the Quality biz we talked about kaizen, a Japanese word meaning gradual, orderly, continuous improvement. Baby steps. You cannot turn a company--or nation--upside down instantly and expect your changes to work as expected. Patience is required because people aren't machines. Look at the old people in Russia who miss Stalin. They liked the way things were despite the occasional famine because it was what they were used to. The Stockholm Syndrome applies to countries, too, and we need to take that into account in our foreign policy.

As for the circular discussion between Moto and luc, my dear friends, give it up. It's going nowhere and has really gotten boring. If you don't give it up I'll drag out my Sandanista anecdote, and I know what thread killers my anecdotes are!

[elucidator]

Shouldn't worry about that. The revelation that my arguments are incoherent has kinda crushed my spirit.

Humiliation...that doesn't lead to erectile dysfunction, does it?

[Mr. Moto]

I haven't been on a snipe hunt like this since the fucking Boy Scouts.

Better just agree to disagree, or somewhat agree, or something. I don't know.

[Shodan]

We and both Korean sides sit parked on the DMZ, generally hoping nobody does anything stupid. Unlike in Iraq, except for the isolated incidents I mentioned, nobody has.You mean apart from developing the Bomb, kidnapping South Koreans (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/04/world/asia/04cnd-korea.html?), firing off missiles over Japan (ex=1309665600&en=fd8f9dccd6e9e692&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss) and tunneling under the DMZ, (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/dprk/kpa-tunnels.htm) everything's been just fine?

Regards,
Shodan