Was Lucille Ball a Communist?

Great Debates
101

[QUOTE=dennis gallagher]
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.
[/QUOTE]

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.

102

[QUOTE=elucidator]
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.
[/QUOTE]

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.

103

[QUOTE=dennis gallagher]
my only point is that communism is no more evil than the catholic church or the united states of america.
[/QUOTE]

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.”

104

[QUOTE=LonesomePolecat]
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.
[/QUOTE]

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.

105

[QUOTE=elucidator]
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.
[/QUOTE]

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.

106

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.

107

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

[ /Moderating ]

108

[QUOTE=LonesomePolecat]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Unsupportable claptrap.

109

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

[ /Moderating ]
[/QUOTE]

Perhaps you would be so kind as to point out to me which “personal” remarks of mine are worthy of rebuke?

110

[QUOTE=elucidator]
Perhaps you would be so kind as to point out to me which “personal” remarks of mine are worthy of rebuke?
[/QUOTE]
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.

111

[QUOTE=elucidator]
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?
[/QUOTE]

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.

112

[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
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?
[/QUOTE]
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.

113

[QUOTE=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.
[/QUOTE]

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.

114

[QUOTE=Fear Itself]
Progress is good, even when imperfect.
[/QUOTE]

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.

115

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

116

[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
Well, the Sandinistas sure weren’t perfect, were they? And I don’t know how much progress they were, either.
[/QUOTE]
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.

117

[QUOTE=elucidator]
Your accusations are noticeably free of citations. An oversight I am sure you will rush to amend.
[/QUOTE]

For that matter, your own remarks are remarkably free of citations. I’m sure you’ll rush to correct that oversight as well.

118

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!..”

119

[QUOTE=elucidator]

The ever popular Wikepedia. Your turn.

[/QUOTE]

Remembering Sandanista Genocide. And don’t complain that it’s biased. It’s at least as objective as Wikipedia.

120

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…