Communism - As A Viable Principle Richard Sale

 

 Download Communism -- As a Viable Principle

Sale

Comments

[William R. Cumming]

IMO Richard a highly apt rebuttal! Also like those who focus on political systems sans economic systems perhaps the real focus should be on Marx and others and Adam Smith and David Hume.

IMO mankind's organizations always contain the seeds of any success but also the seeds of their collapse. Perhaps am wrong.

[Walrus]

I am sorry that you have had to waste your time attempting to prove a point on which we both agree - that communism isn't a viable organising principle. We also agree that Stalin, Pol Pot, etc. we're beastly.

You have missed my point completely; I didn't say that I thought that Communism was a valid model, i said that a lot of highly intelligent people in the 1930's, among them Orwell, Burgess, Philby, McLean and Blunt and a host of Continental intellectuals and leaders, not to mention average folk, we're transfixed by the apparent promise of this allegedly new form of organisation and a lot of them devoted their lives to it.

Some, like Orwell, were disabused and came to his senses when they realised how the concept had been applied by Stalin, others, whom I labeled " true believers", continued in their dying days to believe that such a system could create a workers paradise if only Marxs ideas were faithfully applied. This was despite mounting evidence of not only the perversions and corruption of Communist regimes. I mentioned Pol Pot as his was the last regime (so far) to engage in genocide under the Communist banner.

The point I was originally trying to make, obviously badly, was that I accused you of applying 20/20 hindsight to an analysis of the motivations and actions of Western leaders before during and after WWII. It was NOT evident to the bulk of Western humanity outside the USA that Communism was a failed and flawed system, despite what a few diplomats believed. Communism in Europe and elsewhere was a clear and present danger to Western Democracy after WWII and this I directly experienced as a child and a young man. You did not. The eventual defeat of Communism involved a massive public relations war by the West for hearts and minds that continued well into the 1960s .

You never saw any of it because of the legal prohibition at the time against the application of government propaganda with America, because Communism never had much hold in America, and because the primary targets were wavering countries like France, Italy, etc. I assure you such campaigns existed and were carried out at great expense even though they were apparently invisible to you, unlike the more direct methods of combatting Communist tendencies in South America.

This is still relevant today. I have repeatedly asked myself why America has not deployed the exactly the same strategies Ten years ago to win Muslim hearts and minds that were so effectively used against Communism. Where are the leagues of moderate Muslim intellectuals? where is the American Muslim women's association? Ivy League scholarships and appointments for moderate Muslim intellectuals. friendship societies? Voice of America broadcasts? There were endless such projects against Communism.

I am at a disadvantage and cannot reply more fully. My library is boxed, it's 4.48 am and all I have is the iPad on my yacht.

[Fred]

"Ivy League scholarships and appointments for moderate Muslim intellectuals."

Damn good question, but why limit them, or even send them, to Ivy League schools? Look what good that's done for our own leadership. We could always send them to fine non-Ivy's like USC, where President Morsi of Egypt earned his PHD. California didn't seem to change his character any. Our Ivy League educated leaders failed to grasp that fact.

[Medicine Man]

That second from last paragraph poses a good question. The dirty hippy in me suspects that some portion of the people in charge of the "war on terror" simply don't want that war won, at least not in any haste. Sadly, it is more likely that those in charge of the WoT simply don't appreciate the utility of such outreach.

I'm happy you replied to Mr. Sale's charge, Walrus. While I think you may have been needlessly provocative when you accused him of falling into F. Fukuyama's mental trap, I read (and re-read) the bulk of your admonishments as being of the "20-20 hindsight" variety, not advocacy for communism. Maybe this argument will go on still, but at least you two won't be talking past one another.

[walrus]

Thank you MM and Fred, I'm trying to shed more light than heat.

I stand by my statement that a lot of the worlds opinion leaders and intelligentia thought that Communism had merit and were keen to try it out, at least until the fall of the Soviet Union whose ultimate flaw, apart from corruption, was economic failure due to the total lack of price signals in their command economy.

An overview of our efforts to try and convince the rest of the world that Communism was not a viable organising principle can be found at the link below. The rest of the world took a lot of convincing - about 1.5 billion dollars a year in todays money.

The workings of the US information agency (USIA) were largely hidden from the view of Americans from 1948 onwards because of the prohibition on domestic propaganda activities contained in the Smith - Mundt Act. This is I suspect the reason that so many historians fall for the line that communism was "discredited" after WWII. The truth is that the battle with Communism for hearts and minds only ended with the fall of the Soviet Union. The USIA was abolished in 1999.

The main target of USIA was Europe. We resorted to more direct means in South America to convince people that communism was a bad idea.

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

[Fred]

I agree plenty of people were enamored of the idea of Communism early on, the US being distanced from Europe and having a different organized labor development history probably had a great deal to do with how we responded to the ideas as a society; that and the general education level (or lack there-of) of many of the general public.

I think you are quite right that the general knowledge of the USIA and its activities in Europe were unknown to most Americans. I remember using a copy of a Congressional report on the Trust Territories of the Pacific Islands in high school (obtain by my father from a friend in DC). I had to bring the thing in to prove I hadn't made the thing up. Surprised the heck out of the English teacher who had no idea there was such a thing. (This was 78-79, right around the time these nations were being made independent)

[MRW]

Walrus,

http://www.oldmagazinearticles.com/The_Cold_War_Berlin_Blockade

"The Berlin Blockade: A Definition (R.O.T.C. Handbook, 1956)
In his 1989 book, Master Spy: The Story of Kim Philby, author Phillip Knightley pointed out that when the Soviet spy Philby, stationed in Washington, discovered that the U.S. had no atomic bombs on hand, Stalin soon gave the order to commence the blockade of the German capital. That said, here is a two paragraph essay briefly explaining what the 1948 Berlin Blockade was and how the Anglo-American masters of West-Germany dealt with the issues at hand:

"Soviet counter-action to American efforts to rebuild the European economy came swiftly. Besides rejecting participation in the program the Soviets, in October 1947, announced the organization of a permanent committee for coordinating the activities of the Communist parties in Europe...By June 1948 the Russians had cut off all land and water traffic with Berlin and the only means of entry was by air."

AND:
http://www.oldmagazinearticles.com/what_was_the_1948_Berlin_Blockade_pdf