If MLK was a Commie, so much the better for Commies

[BrainGlutton]

@Indistinguishable

The thread title seems straightforward. Expanded out: “If Martin Luther King Jr. was actually a Communist, as many allege, then this then this association should not be reason for us to think less of Martin Luther King Jr. (as the allegers might mean for us to do); rather, it would be reason for us to think more highly of Communists”. Agree with it or not, but the words are clear.

Partly, but actually I was thinking more along the lines of the thoughts expressed in this article that appeared in The American Conservative after Nelson Mandela died:

Mandela Practiced Magnanimity In Triumph

By Noah Millman • December 6, 2013, 12:00 PM

The tributes to Nelson Mandela are coming thick and fast, as well they should. Rather than add my own to the list, though, I’d like to suggest that we take those commendations to heart.

Mandela is being praised for two qualities more than anything: his firmness and determination through decades of struggle for justice, and his extraordinary magnanimity in victory. Neither quality is particularly common, and both are highly praiseworthy—but they are particularly extraordinary in combination.

And we are most likely to applaud the half of that combination that we can most easily see applying to us. So, those who thirst for justice are more likely to look up to his tenacity and uncompromising pursuit of right. And those who fear revolution are more likely to praise his eagerness to reach out to his former oppressors and integrate them into his new South African order.

All of which has an unfortunate way of turning Mandela against our current opponents. Of telling those in power: will you really jail another Mandela if he comes among us? And of telling those who would overturn the established order: I can’t listen to you unless you promise to be as forgiving as he is if you win?

It would be nice if we did the opposite.

So, for example, there’s a substantial conservative record of support for the South African apartheid government during the Cold War, on the grounds that it was an ally against Communism and that the ANC had ties to Communist movements. Now could be a time for liberals to point to that record and demand its disavowal, and for conservatives to demand magnanimity and understanding for their prioritization of anti-Communism over anti-racism.

But given the scale of the anti-Communist victory, wouldn’t it be more in tune with the moment for conservatives to be magnanimous, and say: you know, it’s entirely understandable why the ANC sought Communist support. Indeed, it’s entirely understandable why many groups fighting oppressive structures and regimes accepted or even sought the support of Soviet-backed groups during the Cold War. What looked like the most important moral question from the perspective of Washington would not have looked like the most important moral question from the perspective of Transkei, or any number of other places. So maybe, now that the Soviet Union is dead and buried, we should stop harping on ties to Communists as some kind of unforgivable sin, in this case and in general.

[BrainGlutton]

@BrainGlutton

Partly, but actually I was thinking more along the lines of the thoughts expressed in this article that appeared in The American Conservative after Nelson Mandela died:

Mods, I just realized that was the whole thing I C&P’d – if you must delete most of it, please leave the last two paragraphs.

[Hector_St_Clare]

Martin Luther King, Junior was about as much of a Communist as Pope Francis is a Muslim. He accepted some moral support from communists, but he himself was extremely critical of communism in his writings. I say that as someone fairly sympathetic to some aspects of (small-c) communism myself.

[YogSothoth]

MLK as a Communist raises the perception of Communists rather than lower the perception of MLK

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

If we accept that the OP’s general premise is that being a communist is not a bad thing, I agree wholly with the OP.

[BrainGlutton]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

If we accept that the OP’s general premise is that being a communist is not a bad thing, I agree wholly with the OP.

Well, it’s a bit more nuanced than that. The Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist form of Communist government is a bad thing – underrated in some respects, but definitely a bad thing overall. And being a Communist is therefore perhaps an intellectual failing – but it is no moral failing. J. Edgar Hoover seemed to think it was.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

In 1964, it wasn’t clear that Soviet-style communism was bad (though it was obvious that there were some bad people in charge.)

[adaher]

It was clear by the 1930s, it’s just that some people allowed themselves to be fooled by Soviet efforts at denialism. After WWII and the enslavement of Eastern Europe, there really were no more excuses.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Eh? Without the Soviet Union the Axis might well have won WWII. And the “enslavement of Eastern Europe” is indicative the bad people in charge, not the philosophy.

[puddleglum]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

In 1964, it wasn’t clear that Soviet-style communism was bad (though it was obvious that there were some bad people in charge.)

By 1964 the terror famine was over thirty years old, the great leap forward was less than ten years before. Kruschev’s speech denouncing Stalin’s crimes happened 8 years before. How many tens of millions of people have to die because of an ideology before you can see that it is irredeemably evil? There was plenty of evidence as long as people were willing to look at that evidence.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

The US is a capitalist democratic republic. Lots of terrible things have been done by the US government, up to and including genocide. How many people have to die before you see that capitalism and democratic government are irredeemably evil?

Oh, wait, they’re not.

[BrainGlutton]

@puddleglum

By 1964 the terror famine was over thirty years old, the great leap forward was less than ten years before. Kruschev’s speech denouncing Stalin’s crimes happened 8 years before. How many tens of millions of people have to die because of an ideology before you can see that it is irredeemably evil? There was plenty of evidence as long as people were willing to look at that evidence.

See post #26.

[puddleglum]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

The US is a capitalist democratic republic. Lots of terrible things have been done by the US government, up to and including genocide. How many people have to die before you see that capitalism and democratic government are irredeemably evil?

Oh, wait, they’re not.

Capitalism and democratic government have also given us the highest standards of living in the history of world. Communism has never given any country anything but tyranny, poverty, and deaths by the millions. Only those who deliberately deceive themselves could deny that communism is and always has been irredeemably evil. There was plenty of evidence for that in the 1960s and the evidence has piled up since then.

[puddleglum]

@BrainGlutton

Well, it’s a bit more nuanced than that. The Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist form of Communist government is a bad thing – underrated in some respects, but definitely a bad thing overall. And being a Communist is therefore perhaps an intellectual failing – but it is no moral failing. J. Edgar Hoover seemed to think it was.

If advocating for a system that leaves tens of millions of people dead and the rest of the population living under tyranny is not a moral failing, then one of us is unclear as to what the meaning of the term moral failing is.

[BrainGlutton]

@puddleglum

If advocating for a system that leaves tens of millions of people dead and the rest of the population living under tyranny is not a moral failing, then one of us is unclear as to what the meaning of the term moral failing is.

I could say the same thing about the American system for what it did to the Indians, blacks, etc.

[BrainGlutton]

@BrainGlutton

I could say the same thing about the American system for what it did to the Indians, blacks, etc.

Now, consider: If you were to tell a defender of American exceptionalism, or of liberal democracy as such, that such support constitutes a “moral failing” because of the above crimes and abuses, he/she probably would respond by:

1. Denying or minimizing the crimes and suffering. This one’s traditional, actually – there were always slavery-ain’t-so-bad-for-the-slaves apologists and people who believed Indians don’t feel pain the way whites do, and I’ve hard Rush Limbaugh argue there are more Indians in the U.S. now than there were in the territory when Columbus landed anyway, so what’s their “genocide” beef?

2. Denying the injustice of it. The Indians were merciless savages who practiced torture and massacred settlers, they deserved everything they got, war is war, the world is better off without them, the only good Indian is a dead Indian, civilized whites could make higher and better use of the land. The blacks were already slaves in Africa when the white traders bought them, they’re mentally inferior and emotionally undisciplined and should be kept in slavery anyway just so they’re under control and not a danger to whites, their masters took them in and gave them useful work, God made them to hew wood and draw water, and today’s blacks are richer than their ancestors ever were in Africa and they got to hear the word of Christ and they should be grateful to those slave traders.

3. Defending it by ends-justify-the-means arguments. Yes, we built this country on the Indians’ bones, and that’s bad, but wasn’t it worth it – isn’t it the most wonderful awesome country ever? And could the South ever have been settled or cultivated or developed its unique genteel culture without cheap slave labor?

4. Dismissing it all as irrelevant. Yes, these were all horrible crimes, but they are neither essential elements nor inevitable consequences of liberal democracy, in fact they are perversions of it (the slaves and Indians didn’t get to vote, did they?). The fundamental principles of liberal democracy remain sound, it’s still OK to be a (small-d) democrat.

And I am certain there are many Dopers who would agree entirely with 4, at least.

Now, can you see, in a general way, how a Communist might respond to your last post?

[BrainGlutton]

See also post #21. Again:

But given the scale of the anti-Communist victory, wouldn’t it be more in tune with the moment for conservatives to be magnanimous, and say: you know, it’s entirely understandable why the ANC sought Communist support. Indeed, it’s entirely understandable why many groups fighting oppressive structures and regimes accepted or even sought the support of Soviet-backed groups during the Cold War. What looked like the most important moral question from the perspective of Washington would not have looked like the most important moral question from the perspective of Transkei, or any number of other places. So maybe, now that the Soviet Union is dead and buried, we should stop harping on ties to Communists as some kind of unforgivable sin, in this case and in general.

[adaher]

Should we also be magnanimous about our victory over fascism?

Now groups like the ANC seeking Communist support, it’s perfectly understandable from a realpolitik perspective. Two points though:

1. The US should get the same benefit of the doubt. What side a regime or rebel group was on in the Cold War had little to do with morality and more to do with who they could get the best deal from and who they thought they could trust more to stick with them. It’s strange that US critics attack our foreign policy for supporting dictators like Pinochet and Marcos in the face of a grave threat to our and our democratic allies’ security, yet siding with Stalin, the greatest mass murderer in history next to Mao, was okay. If it’s okay for the ANC to side with the Commies, it was okay for us to side with right-wing regimes.

2. While a lot of groups and regimes sided with the Communists out of realpolitik concerns, none of them were obligated to defend everything they did or accept their worldview in toto. some of them did and they deserve the moral stain that comes with that. You accept arms and support and do little favors here and there because you have to. You back their repression and invasion of other countries because you like it.

[puddleglum]

@BrainGlutton

I could say the same thing about the American system for what it did to the Indians, blacks, etc.

There is nothing intrinsic in the American system about what happened to the Indians. Two cultures fighting over a piece of land and one winning is the story of mankind. Likewise slavery existed for thousands of years before America, and tribalism existed for thousands of years before America.
On the other hand, communism is something new in that it kills millions of its own citizens and impoverishes the rest in a totalitarian nightmare virtually unprecedented in history.

[BrainGlutton]

@puddleglum

There is nothing intrinsic in the American system about what happened to the Indians. Two cultures fighting over a piece of land and one winning is the story of mankind. Likewise slavery existed for thousands of years before America, and tribalism existed for thousands of years before America.

See post #36, point 4.

@puddleglum

On the other hand, communism is something new in that it kills millions of its own citizens and impoverishes the rest in a totalitarian nightmare virtually unprecedented in history.

You’re fairly describing NK, or the USSR in its worst periods or China in its craziest, but, come on, you know it does not always work out that way. Do you really think the people of China or Vietnam or Cuba are living in “a totalitarian nightmare virtually unprecedented in history”? They don’t seem to think so. Those countries have a crappy human-rights record even now, but they’re no dystopias.