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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
Let’s put that in context, Moto; how many free, open elections did the Somoza dynasty permit in their 34 years of power? Progress is good, even when imperfect.
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.
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.
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.
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!..”
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…