Which surprises me not at all. It goes part and parcel with Stalinism.
59 thoughts on “The Hollywood Blacklist Narrative”
Don’t stop there! Churchill was a communist, as is demonstrated by the millions of tons of supplies shipped from Britain to the Soviet Union during WW2, and remember that McCarthyism was actually a communist persecution of the American right.
Don’t be stupid.
You started it promoting a rewrite of history.
Not really. The information has been out there, just buried really deep. Start with “McCarthy and his Enemies”. It’s a good, calm look at “McCarthyism” written at the time, using primary sources. The appendix talking about all the Con man, and all the “McCarthyism” tactics used by the Democrats and the Press against McCarthy is just amazing.
Note how our resident scholar Andrew W never actually tries to refute the points raised in the article.
That’ll be because the article doesn’t raise any points, we get “Ryskind shows . . .” but the article doesn’t explain how this or that is shown, the whole thing is just a string of unsupported claims.
Don’t be stupid.
He can’t stop being what he is.
That ship has obviously sailed, RS.
Do you understand Hollywood culture? I doubt it. Why are you throwing out these silly accusations? (You’ll probably back pedal and call it “satire”.) As one who knows Hollywood types, I can vouch for the leftist herd mentality. It is rampant. And you don’t have to know people, just watch television. As soon as they get a chance, the writers throw in a dig or two against conservative ideas.
Sure Hollywood has its politics, and a lot of actors have the politics you’d expect of thespians, but this isn’t about the politics of Hollywood today.
Through the late forties and the fifties America did go a little commie paranoid, McCarthyism is a reality of those times, and so is the Hollywood blacklist, There are lots of people who want to rewrite history to sanitize the role people of their political persuasion played. David Irving representing the worst of this type, but maybe zealots of any political ideology can be tempted into doing these rewrites.
I am responding to your “tu quoque” argument. You have conveniently turned Rand’s argument of today into an argument of yesterday. Why did you do that?
I’m not sure I get what you mean, you followed Rand’s link? You get that Ron Capshaw’s article is about the “Hollywood Blacklist” claims of mid-century, subsequent to the “Hollywood Ten”, that when Rand said ” …was a lie” he wasn’t referring to current events?
Hollywood became paranoid about communist infiltration because of the communists infiltrating Hollywood. Communism had been popular in some circles in the 1930’s, and WW-II did little to disabuse them of their idiocy. Many made pro-Soviet films during the war (which seemed patriotic at the time), and the Soviets maintained their useful ties to many writers and producers, dictating what they should write. That’s [i]normal[/i] for Soviet thought, which is to control a population through controlling the media, on top of laying the groundwork for a workers revolution by exposing the flaws of capitalist exploitation. Communist party membership cards were kind of a giveaway about what was going on.
I can believe a lot of that, communism, like free lollies, can be tempting to the uneducated and the dim, people who don’t get TANSTAAFL, but that points to a confirmation rather than a refutation of “The Hollywood Blacklist Narrative”.
I can also believe that many ideologies can be seductive to the educated and bright. Just look at how the “educated” of the twenties and thirties fell for white supremacy, or the “educated” democrats thinking that more government intervention increases productivity in private business.
All that aside, you have just dismissed two arguments with the argument that they are uneducated and dim.
Actually white supremacy has its biggest following amongst poorer less educated whites who find themselves competing for employment with poor blacks, and Democrats don’t advocate more government intervention to increase productivity, they advocate it to have more control in the name of “fairness” and “safety”.
As far as the smart cookies go, the ones who make an ideology a living rather than a hobby, it’s about power, whatever their ideology.
The “Hollywood Blacklist Narrative” says there were no Communists, only innocent victims of right-wing oppression. How is evidence of actual Communists “confirmation” of that narrative?
So being a communist means that you can’t be a victim of a campaign to get you blacklisted from Hollywood because the blacklisting is deserved?
I don’t think it was ever claimed that every single one of those who were “blacklisted” were not communists.
At least try to follow the conversation, Andrew. The standard narrative says the people who were blacklisted were *falsely accused* of being Communists. Which is not the same as being a Communist. It’s the opposite, in fact.
Additionally, the Hollywood blacklists were an invention of the Left, used against anti-Communists like Morrie Ryskind. It was only later, when the blacklists were turned against the Communists, that the hue and cry began.
So, the story that blacklists were invented by the right to punish innocent, suffering people who were falsely accused of being Communists has a number of flaws in it.
At least try to follow the conversation, Andrew. The standard narrative says the people who were blacklisted were *falsely accused* of being Communists.
Which is what I was pointing out with “I don’t think it was ever claimed that every single one of those who were “blacklisted” were not communists.”
That is, while some were communists, some (actually many) non-communists were caught in the witch hunt.
That’s the narrative, are you claiming it’s wrong?
non-communists were caught in the witch hunt.
Are you claiming there are witches? For instance, the Salem Witch Trials actually tried a couple of real witches too?
If you claim yes, then maybe I understand your point, but if you claim no, maybe you should consider your words carefully and why people think you are off base.
Which is what I was pointing out with “I don’t think it was ever claimed that every single one of those who were “blacklisted” were not communists.
Some people don’t think Neil Armstrong landed on the Moon. You are both wrong.
many) non-communists were caught in the witch hunt.
Perhaps. But unless you define the value of “many,” that statement is meaningless.
Churchill also was instrumental in sending the American and English expeditionary forces to fight the Bolsheviks and keep the Whites in power; argued long and fiercely in favor of supplying the Finns with weapons and other material support during their Continuation War with the Soviets; and invented the tern “Iron Curtain”.
But hey- don’t let reality stop you. You never have before, after all.
/waves hands mystically over the keyboard
“Commentarias obscurus disappearus!”
I wonder what Andrew will say about the National Academy blacklisting scientists like Frank Tipler and Freeman Dyson?
Wonder no more, I don’t think it was appropriate for the NAS to publish such a list, and those on the list are entitled to an apology.
Actually white supremacy has its biggest following amongst poorer less educated whites who find themselves competing for employment with poor blacks, and Democrats don’t advocate more government intervention to increase productivity, they advocate it to have more control in the name of “fairness” and “safety”.
No. I referred to the twenties and thirties when every educated person believed it. Seriously, you can look it up. In fact, look up the Mismeasure of Man. Gould shows scientists used to measure skulls and thus proved the superiority of whites. Planned Parenthood was started by a eugenicist. This stuff is easy to research.
Democrats bring up productivity all the time.
OK, “white supremacy” isn’t the term I’d use for that period. Did many if not most people believe that white people were inherently smarter than black people? Yes, believing it was common sense for many, and lots of people promote common sense, even today.
No, it was white supremacy, and it was started in England. Darwin’s, Descent of Man is rife with racist attitudes towards non whites.
If it was just a view of smarter vs non smarter, why did the eugenics movement advocate the elimination of blacks? Many people, including Henry Ford, advocated the views of the Nazis.
You’re arguing that a belief in the superiority of the white race is not white supremacy? Seriously?
No I’m not arguing that, just that the modern use of the term “white supremacist” has overtones of racial hatred. I’m uncomfortable that people of 2 eras who have different motivations for their beliefs are getting the same label, but it’s no biggie.
You think that racial hatred is a recent development? Interesting.
You really love your straw men don’t you?
You really love your straw men don’t you?
This from the man who said “Churchill was a Communist.” 🙂
Theodore Sturgeon once wrote a science-fiction story based on the premise that most people do not ask the next logical question. I notice that a lot in discussions of blacklisting and the so-called “Red Scare.” Some of the questions that immediately occur to me, and apparently never occur to “liberals” (especially the now dominant Stupid Left) are:
(1) Should we not have been scared to the “Reds”–and if you say “No,” should we also, by the same token, have been as blase about the Nazis?
(2) When someone says “So-and-so was accused of being a Communist during the McCarthy Era,” why do they almost never ask the next question: “Were they?” That is, “Was the accusation accurate?”
(3) And if the accusation were accurate, and So-and-so clearly was a Red, and your average “liberal” (and by “liberal” I mean of course “tax-happy, coercion-addicted, power-tripping State-fellator”) then counters with, “Well, so what? What’s the big deal?”–would that “liberal” be as blase if So-and-so were justly accused of being a Nazi?
(4) And if not, why not? Is one form of murderous totalitarianism somehow morally superior to another form of murderous totalitarianism, what makes it so? Using just the crude criterion of bodycount, the Commies have the Nazis beat all hollow.
I’m pretty sure there are both American Nazi and Communist groups around today, so what’s your point? That they should get some sort of special treatment? Be held in internment camps for subscribing to their beliefs?
At the time, wasn’t it alleged that the communists in question were working for foreign governments? It is one thing to be an American communist and other to be a communist in America working as an agent for a foreign government.
“Be held in internment camps for subscribing to their beliefs?”
We don’t throw them in camps but neo-Nazis are always being watched by law enforcement, tracked by NGOs, and universally viewed as detrimental to society. Communists, however, operate openly at the highest and lowest levels of the Democrat party. It is rather mind boggling how proud they are to associate with communists.
There’s evidence of links and communications between some American communists and foreign governments, “working as an agent” seems to be overstating it, I haven’t come across evidence of paychecks.
Paychecks are unnecessary for the ideologically committed.
Communists, however, operate openly at the highest and lowest levels of the Democrat party.
Please name a few of those communists at the highest levels of the Democratic party, I’m curious to hear who they are.
Van Jones was working at THE highest levels of the party – for the Party Leader. Self-proclaimed Communist.
Anita Dunn – communications director for THE highest level of the party: the Party Leader – stated that Mao was one of her two favorite political philosophers. Mao, in case you hadn’t heard, was a Communist.
Congresswoman Maxine Waters…well she’s only gotten to socialism but she’s on her way:
Jay Carney…Glorious Soviet Propaganda posters as artwork in his home. Not, of course, proof that he’s a Communist, but you see that and it makes you wonder, when you read about the Andy Worhol Mao Christmas ornaments in the White House, or hear about spreading the wealth around as told to Joe the Plumber? These items are circumstantial – yes. Still, not things to be completely ignored.
I can’t find anything solid supporting your accusation that Jones and Dunn are communists, other than Glenn Beck said so.
Do they need to carry a card, and offer a copy to you? Is it not enough to say that one is a communist, as Jones did?
OK,over 20 years ago Jones said he was a communist, I don’t find it convincing to ascribe someones politics of 20 years ago to being their current politics, after all, their are more than a few Republican who were of the left in their younger life and we don’t continue to label them lefties (apart from the porkers), hard to see how a leftie who was once a communist must still be a communist.
Has he renounced communism? Or did he just realize that calling himself one was bad PR?
Well, Van Jones, for one.
Believe it or not, its up to you.
You could read Obama’s books to see the high regard he has for communists. You could also take note of how Democrats always side with communist countries at odds with the USA. You could look at Democrats elected to office while proclaiming to be communist as happened in Washington state. You could look at the list of organizers or simply read the signs at any Democrat protest.
It cannot be denied that Democrats have a deep, open, and accommodating relationship with communists. They are one of the cornerstones of Democrat party structure and activism.
This is the point where you say, “So what? What’s wrong with socialism? We wouldn’t have roads without socialism.”
No, we (or at least I) just think that communists should be treated with the same social approbrium as Nazis, instead of being lionized on college campi.
hard to see how a leftie who was once a communist must still be a communist
The real irony is that the historical blacklisting was exactly this dynamic. There were a lot of hollywood writers, etc, who may have joined the party or went to some meetings or whatever in their youth, only to find themselves decades later fired from their jobs in a wave of anti-communist hysteria.
Ya, this is more in line with the what’s wrong with being a communist argument you will be making if this conversation continues.
A couple of things I think pertinent to the discussion;
1. Was the US in some sort of danger from domestic communists that required the suspension of some of the most cherished principles written into the Constitution, principles concerning the right to have ones own ideological opinions without being subjected to persecution? Principles I’d hope that people on this forum would be amongst the first to demand be upheld.
Given the fact that the rest of the Western World managed to get through the same period with their own domestic communist parties without falling to communism, and without sacrificing those principles that were thrown away in the American witch hunt, I’d say it’s pretty obvious that the entire sordid fiasco achieved nothing but give a few politicians sick little power trips at the expense of the freedom and the careers people innocent of any crime, or at least of anything that would be a crime in a civilized country at a civilized time.
2. Given the extreme hardship many suffered in the great depression, it’s hardly surprising that, through that period, many people looked to political systems other than the one that was failing them in the US.
The market system is the best system we’ve got, and though it wasn’t the market itself that failed Americans, to many it must have seemed that it was.
” Given the fact that the rest of the Western World managed to get through the same period with their own domestic communist parties without falling to communism, ”
And tomorrow you will post how we shouldn’t be so distrustful of communist policies since they are doing so well in Europe.
And tomorrow you will post how we shouldn’t be so distrustful of communist policies since they are doing so well in Europe.
No I won’t, but maybe you see yourself as making some other point?
To me the whole scare over domestic communists was not just a breach of constitutional principles around peoples freedom to hold whatever beliefs they liked, but also demonstrated a strange apparent lack of faith by the supporters and members of the HUAC in Americans and the American system, so, unless it was a genuine lack of faith by those politicians in the American system and Americans ability to think for themselves, it really was all about a few politicians sick little power trips.
“To me the whole scare over domestic communists was not just a breach of constitutional principles around peoples freedom to hold whatever beliefs they liked . . .”
Yes, I’m sure all find your devotion to the Constitution and to liberty inspiring.
Substitute Naziism everywhere you wrote Communism. Does it still seem appropriate to be blase about it?
I’d have the same position if it were Nazi’s, witches, Muslims, trade unionists or Jews being persecuted, holding beliefs is not something people should fear state persecution for, acting on those beliefs, if so doing falls under the definition of criminal acts, is obviously a different matter.
What if “acting on their beliefs” includes signing up with a group that owes allegiance to a foreign power dedicated to destroying the United States? You really haven’t read much about communism or the Communist Party, have you, AW? (Or about much else, I’m guessing.)
Besides, blacklisting wasn’t so much about State persecution as it was people who valued liberty and destested communism (not a mentality AW and other “useful idiiots” would comprehend, not wanting to hire communists or fellow-travelers (i.e., accomplices) with communism.
Ever notice that the people who complain about the threats to freedom during the so-called McCarthy Era are also the biggest State-f*ckers? Interesting, isn’t it?
You not only can but must discriminate on thinking rather than just acting. It’s what elections are supposed to be for… since it is a prediction of future actions based on current thinking.
Don’t stop there! Churchill was a communist, as is demonstrated by the millions of tons of supplies shipped from Britain to the Soviet Union during WW2, and remember that McCarthyism was actually a communist persecution of the American right.
Don’t be stupid.
You started it promoting a rewrite of history.
Not really. The information has been out there, just buried really deep. Start with “McCarthy and his Enemies”. It’s a good, calm look at “McCarthyism” written at the time, using primary sources. The appendix talking about all the Con man, and all the “McCarthyism” tactics used by the Democrats and the Press against McCarthy is just amazing.
Note how our resident scholar Andrew W never actually tries to refute the points raised in the article.
That’ll be because the article doesn’t raise any points, we get “Ryskind shows . . .” but the article doesn’t explain how this or that is shown, the whole thing is just a string of unsupported claims.
Don’t be stupid.
He can’t stop being what he is.
That ship has obviously sailed, RS.
Do you understand Hollywood culture? I doubt it. Why are you throwing out these silly accusations? (You’ll probably back pedal and call it “satire”.) As one who knows Hollywood types, I can vouch for the leftist herd mentality. It is rampant. And you don’t have to know people, just watch television. As soon as they get a chance, the writers throw in a dig or two against conservative ideas.
Sure Hollywood has its politics, and a lot of actors have the politics you’d expect of thespians, but this isn’t about the politics of Hollywood today.
Through the late forties and the fifties America did go a little commie paranoid, McCarthyism is a reality of those times, and so is the Hollywood blacklist, There are lots of people who want to rewrite history to sanitize the role people of their political persuasion played. David Irving representing the worst of this type, but maybe zealots of any political ideology can be tempted into doing these rewrites.
I am responding to your “tu quoque” argument. You have conveniently turned Rand’s argument of today into an argument of yesterday. Why did you do that?
I’m not sure I get what you mean, you followed Rand’s link? You get that Ron Capshaw’s article is about the “Hollywood Blacklist” claims of mid-century, subsequent to the “Hollywood Ten”, that when Rand said ” …was a lie” he wasn’t referring to current events?
Hollywood became paranoid about communist infiltration because of the communists infiltrating Hollywood. Communism had been popular in some circles in the 1930’s, and WW-II did little to disabuse them of their idiocy. Many made pro-Soviet films during the war (which seemed patriotic at the time), and the Soviets maintained their useful ties to many writers and producers, dictating what they should write. That’s [i]normal[/i] for Soviet thought, which is to control a population through controlling the media, on top of laying the groundwork for a workers revolution by exposing the flaws of capitalist exploitation. Communist party membership cards were kind of a giveaway about what was going on.
I can believe a lot of that, communism, like free lollies, can be tempting to the uneducated and the dim, people who don’t get TANSTAAFL, but that points to a confirmation rather than a refutation of “The Hollywood Blacklist Narrative”.
I can also believe that many ideologies can be seductive to the educated and bright. Just look at how the “educated” of the twenties and thirties fell for white supremacy, or the “educated” democrats thinking that more government intervention increases productivity in private business.
All that aside, you have just dismissed two arguments with the argument that they are uneducated and dim.
Actually white supremacy has its biggest following amongst poorer less educated whites who find themselves competing for employment with poor blacks, and Democrats don’t advocate more government intervention to increase productivity, they advocate it to have more control in the name of “fairness” and “safety”.
As far as the smart cookies go, the ones who make an ideology a living rather than a hobby, it’s about power, whatever their ideology.
The “Hollywood Blacklist Narrative” says there were no Communists, only innocent victims of right-wing oppression. How is evidence of actual Communists “confirmation” of that narrative?
So being a communist means that you can’t be a victim of a campaign to get you blacklisted from Hollywood because the blacklisting is deserved?
I don’t think it was ever claimed that every single one of those who were “blacklisted” were not communists.
At least try to follow the conversation, Andrew. The standard narrative says the people who were blacklisted were *falsely accused* of being Communists. Which is not the same as being a Communist. It’s the opposite, in fact.
Additionally, the Hollywood blacklists were an invention of the Left, used against anti-Communists like Morrie Ryskind. It was only later, when the blacklists were turned against the Communists, that the hue and cry began.
So, the story that blacklists were invented by the right to punish innocent, suffering people who were falsely accused of being Communists has a number of flaws in it.
At least try to follow the conversation, Andrew. The standard narrative says the people who were blacklisted were *falsely accused* of being Communists.
Which is what I was pointing out with “I don’t think it was ever claimed that every single one of those who were “blacklisted” were not communists.”
That is, while some were communists, some (actually many) non-communists were caught in the witch hunt.
That’s the narrative, are you claiming it’s wrong?
non-communists were caught in the witch hunt.
Are you claiming there are witches? For instance, the Salem Witch Trials actually tried a couple of real witches too?
If you claim yes, then maybe I understand your point, but if you claim no, maybe you should consider your words carefully and why people think you are off base.
Which is what I was pointing out with “I don’t think it was ever claimed that every single one of those who were “blacklisted” were not communists.
Some people don’t think Neil Armstrong landed on the Moon. You are both wrong.
many) non-communists were caught in the witch hunt.
Perhaps. But unless you define the value of “many,” that statement is meaningless.
Churchill also was instrumental in sending the American and English expeditionary forces to fight the Bolsheviks and keep the Whites in power; argued long and fiercely in favor of supplying the Finns with weapons and other material support during their Continuation War with the Soviets; and invented the tern “Iron Curtain”.
But hey- don’t let reality stop you. You never have before, after all.
/waves hands mystically over the keyboard
“Commentarias obscurus disappearus!”
I wonder what Andrew will say about the National Academy blacklisting scientists like Frank Tipler and Freeman Dyson?
http://pjmedia.com/blog/writing-for-pjm-helped-make-me-enemy-of-the-state-number-38/
Wonder no more, I don’t think it was appropriate for the NAS to publish such a list, and those on the list are entitled to an apology.
Actually white supremacy has its biggest following amongst poorer less educated whites who find themselves competing for employment with poor blacks, and Democrats don’t advocate more government intervention to increase productivity, they advocate it to have more control in the name of “fairness” and “safety”.
No. I referred to the twenties and thirties when every educated person believed it. Seriously, you can look it up. In fact, look up the Mismeasure of Man. Gould shows scientists used to measure skulls and thus proved the superiority of whites. Planned Parenthood was started by a eugenicist. This stuff is easy to research.
Democrats bring up productivity all the time.
OK, “white supremacy” isn’t the term I’d use for that period. Did many if not most people believe that white people were inherently smarter than black people? Yes, believing it was common sense for many, and lots of people promote common sense, even today.
No, it was white supremacy, and it was started in England. Darwin’s, Descent of Man is rife with racist attitudes towards non whites.
If it was just a view of smarter vs non smarter, why did the eugenics movement advocate the elimination of blacks? Many people, including Henry Ford, advocated the views of the Nazis.
You’re arguing that a belief in the superiority of the white race is not white supremacy? Seriously?
No I’m not arguing that, just that the modern use of the term “white supremacist” has overtones of racial hatred. I’m uncomfortable that people of 2 eras who have different motivations for their beliefs are getting the same label, but it’s no biggie.
You think that racial hatred is a recent development? Interesting.
You really love your straw men don’t you?
You really love your straw men don’t you?
This from the man who said “Churchill was a Communist.” 🙂
Theodore Sturgeon once wrote a science-fiction story based on the premise that most people do not ask the next logical question. I notice that a lot in discussions of blacklisting and the so-called “Red Scare.” Some of the questions that immediately occur to me, and apparently never occur to “liberals” (especially the now dominant Stupid Left) are:
(1) Should we not have been scared to the “Reds”–and if you say “No,” should we also, by the same token, have been as blase about the Nazis?
(2) When someone says “So-and-so was accused of being a Communist during the McCarthy Era,” why do they almost never ask the next question: “Were they?” That is, “Was the accusation accurate?”
(3) And if the accusation were accurate, and So-and-so clearly was a Red, and your average “liberal” (and by “liberal” I mean of course “tax-happy, coercion-addicted, power-tripping State-fellator”) then counters with, “Well, so what? What’s the big deal?”–would that “liberal” be as blase if So-and-so were justly accused of being a Nazi?
(4) And if not, why not? Is one form of murderous totalitarianism somehow morally superior to another form of murderous totalitarianism, what makes it so? Using just the crude criterion of bodycount, the Commies have the Nazis beat all hollow.
I’m pretty sure there are both American Nazi and Communist groups around today, so what’s your point? That they should get some sort of special treatment? Be held in internment camps for subscribing to their beliefs?
At the time, wasn’t it alleged that the communists in question were working for foreign governments? It is one thing to be an American communist and other to be a communist in America working as an agent for a foreign government.
“Be held in internment camps for subscribing to their beliefs?”
We don’t throw them in camps but neo-Nazis are always being watched by law enforcement, tracked by NGOs, and universally viewed as detrimental to society. Communists, however, operate openly at the highest and lowest levels of the Democrat party. It is rather mind boggling how proud they are to associate with communists.
There’s evidence of links and communications between some American communists and foreign governments, “working as an agent” seems to be overstating it, I haven’t come across evidence of paychecks.
Paychecks are unnecessary for the ideologically committed.
Communists, however, operate openly at the highest and lowest levels of the Democrat party.
Please name a few of those communists at the highest levels of the Democratic party, I’m curious to hear who they are.
Van Jones was working at THE highest levels of the party – for the Party Leader. Self-proclaimed Communist.
Anita Dunn – communications director for THE highest level of the party: the Party Leader – stated that Mao was one of her two favorite political philosophers. Mao, in case you hadn’t heard, was a Communist.
Congresswoman Maxine Waters…well she’s only gotten to socialism but she’s on her way:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3I-PVVowFY
3 right off the top of my head.
Then there’s the hints.
Jay Carney…Glorious Soviet Propaganda posters as artwork in his home. Not, of course, proof that he’s a Communist, but you see that and it makes you wonder, when you read about the Andy Worhol Mao Christmas ornaments in the White House, or hear about spreading the wealth around as told to Joe the Plumber? These items are circumstantial – yes. Still, not things to be completely ignored.
I can’t find anything solid supporting your accusation that Jones and Dunn are communists, other than Glenn Beck said so.
Do they need to carry a card, and offer a copy to you? Is it not enough to say that one is a communist, as Jones did?
OK,over 20 years ago Jones said he was a communist, I don’t find it convincing to ascribe someones politics of 20 years ago to being their current politics, after all, their are more than a few Republican who were of the left in their younger life and we don’t continue to label them lefties (apart from the porkers), hard to see how a leftie who was once a communist must still be a communist.
Has he renounced communism? Or did he just realize that calling himself one was bad PR?
Well, Van Jones, for one.
Believe it or not, its up to you.
You could read Obama’s books to see the high regard he has for communists. You could also take note of how Democrats always side with communist countries at odds with the USA. You could look at Democrats elected to office while proclaiming to be communist as happened in Washington state. You could look at the list of organizers or simply read the signs at any Democrat protest.
It cannot be denied that Democrats have a deep, open, and accommodating relationship with communists. They are one of the cornerstones of Democrat party structure and activism.
This is the point where you say, “So what? What’s wrong with socialism? We wouldn’t have roads without socialism.”
No, we (or at least I) just think that communists should be treated with the same social approbrium as Nazis, instead of being lionized on college campi.
hard to see how a leftie who was once a communist must still be a communist
The real irony is that the historical blacklisting was exactly this dynamic. There were a lot of hollywood writers, etc, who may have joined the party or went to some meetings or whatever in their youth, only to find themselves decades later fired from their jobs in a wave of anti-communist hysteria.
Ya, this is more in line with the what’s wrong with being a communist argument you will be making if this conversation continues.
A couple of things I think pertinent to the discussion;
1. Was the US in some sort of danger from domestic communists that required the suspension of some of the most cherished principles written into the Constitution, principles concerning the right to have ones own ideological opinions without being subjected to persecution? Principles I’d hope that people on this forum would be amongst the first to demand be upheld.
Given the fact that the rest of the Western World managed to get through the same period with their own domestic communist parties without falling to communism, and without sacrificing those principles that were thrown away in the American witch hunt, I’d say it’s pretty obvious that the entire sordid fiasco achieved nothing but give a few politicians sick little power trips at the expense of the freedom and the careers people innocent of any crime, or at least of anything that would be a crime in a civilized country at a civilized time.
2. Given the extreme hardship many suffered in the great depression, it’s hardly surprising that, through that period, many people looked to political systems other than the one that was failing them in the US.
The market system is the best system we’ve got, and though it wasn’t the market itself that failed Americans, to many it must have seemed that it was.
” Given the fact that the rest of the Western World managed to get through the same period with their own domestic communist parties without falling to communism, ”
And tomorrow you will post how we shouldn’t be so distrustful of communist policies since they are doing so well in Europe.
And tomorrow you will post how we shouldn’t be so distrustful of communist policies since they are doing so well in Europe.
No I won’t, but maybe you see yourself as making some other point?
To me the whole scare over domestic communists was not just a breach of constitutional principles around peoples freedom to hold whatever beliefs they liked, but also demonstrated a strange apparent lack of faith by the supporters and members of the HUAC in Americans and the American system, so, unless it was a genuine lack of faith by those politicians in the American system and Americans ability to think for themselves, it really was all about a few politicians sick little power trips.
“To me the whole scare over domestic communists was not just a breach of constitutional principles around peoples freedom to hold whatever beliefs they liked . . .”
Yes, I’m sure all find your devotion to the Constitution and to liberty inspiring.
Substitute Naziism everywhere you wrote Communism. Does it still seem appropriate to be blase about it?
I’d have the same position if it were Nazi’s, witches, Muslims, trade unionists or Jews being persecuted, holding beliefs is not something people should fear state persecution for, acting on those beliefs, if so doing falls under the definition of criminal acts, is obviously a different matter.
What if “acting on their beliefs” includes signing up with a group that owes allegiance to a foreign power dedicated to destroying the United States? You really haven’t read much about communism or the Communist Party, have you, AW? (Or about much else, I’m guessing.)
Besides, blacklisting wasn’t so much about State persecution as it was people who valued liberty and destested communism (not a mentality AW and other “useful idiiots” would comprehend, not wanting to hire communists or fellow-travelers (i.e., accomplices) with communism.
Ever notice that the people who complain about the threats to freedom during the so-called McCarthy Era are also the biggest State-f*ckers? Interesting, isn’t it?
You not only can but must discriminate on thinking rather than just acting. It’s what elections are supposed to be for… since it is a prediction of future actions based on current thinking.
Not to do that is simply irresponsible.