A West Point Grad Wrote 'Communism Will Win' in His Cap

[HomerThompson]

The Arthur Millers and Steinbecks vilified McCarthy and the "Red Scare" because it accurately saw that many influential leftists were in fact radicals and communists.

It was a witch hunt in the sense that it was taking care of real witches.

LOL. McCarthy was in the right. You can't make this stuff up, folks.

 

[The Diplomat]

The Arthur Millers and Steinbecks vilified McCarthy and the "Red Scare" because it accurately saw that many influential leftists were in fact radicals and communists.

It was a witch hunt in the sense that it was taking care of real witches.

Yeah, a lot of good those singers and actors did for the commies. If anything, that was a black eye on democracy. Even JFK knew that, and he was no fan of commies.

 

[HomerThompson]

Inspirational post.



Leaching of social capital via numbers and violence? Let's be honest when we substitute "ethics" for "realities of mankind".

This is literally how capitalism works. Please see US foreign policy for details.

 

[Islam Imamate]

And even then, an economic system is only really part of a nation's makeup. You can have the best system there is, but it won't work if the cultural values are shite, and citizens don't really care. Anything is prone to corruption.

Well I think certain systems are more compatible with certain cultures. For the ethnic/sectarian/tribal mosaic of the Middle East I think systems that emphasize local governance over national systems are better because the various groups are allowed their own self determination without one capturing the reins of the central state and imposing its interests and vision upon the others.

 

[sub_thug]

I'd like to go more into whether or not the propagation of Communism is a subversive act as opposed to a persuasive act, but i'm limited on quotes as mobile is a bitch. I can however, speak as to the nature of the "not real communism" argument and why those criticisms tend to fall flat to Marxist adherents.

Marx and Engels understood very well the necessity of Proletarian Internationalism, or a world revolution. It's foundational theory for Marxists, Capitalism is an international economic theory, and has moving parts and bulwarks that contribute to its ongoing existence throughout the world. Without suppressing those bulwarks and navigating those moving parts, Communism (being a siezing of power by workers) was doomed to fail as Bourgeois classes would inevitably work to restore the status quo by utilizing economic weapons to "starve the beast" so to speak. As we can see, that's exactly what happened. Though Marxist theory did spread across the world, Capitalist countries used every tool in their belt to suppress any tangible international revolution, hence Stalin's renunciation of the international goal and focus on "Socialism within one state". (See: "Problems of Leninism", J. V. Stalin)

Absent from those pressures, Communist societies can very well thrive given acceptable inputs. Look no further than Hutterites in the good ol US of A. They own communally, work communally, and are thriving just fine. And they're not removed from the effects of modern society either, they simply aren't the target of animus that could potentially destroy their community from the outside. Now the Hutterites are not Communists (as they don't adhere to marxist philosophy in any appreciable form), but their society is a case study in the success of communal societies when allowed to exist unmolested.

Were Stalin not so opposed to classical Marxism (and really, not so devoted to his own cult of Soviet personality), you could very well have seen Internationalism take root in Great Powers around the world. The point is that this shift was a response to the issues of revolutions failing around the globe as a result of Capitalist intervention, not an intended result of the philosophy. The theory is sound, the execution (as a result of historical factors) is where we delineate Soviet Communism from True Communism as Marx (and Lenin to an extent) envisioned it.

Please understand that to people who don't believe in Communism, this may sound an awful lot like a suicide pact. "For this work, we are all going to have to jump in." And according to Marxist theory, as evidenced by its dependency on internationalism, it requires that at least many of the world powers adopt this thinking all at the same time and with the same goals in mind. In a lot of ways, it comes down to Game Theory. In the Prisoner's Dilemna, it always benefits the individual to defect. In terms of nation-states, defecting on Communism can either be not signing up to go down with the Red ship, or it could be a way to become a global power as everyone else signs on board. Getting all these people to believe the same things at the same time, working towards the same goal, seems far too hopeful.

I agree that communal societies can and have worked. To debate this would be to deny history. The Native Hawaiians even adopted these kinds of ideas. But what inevitably happens in an increasingly globalized economy is the influx of new ideas, new motivations, and new sources of competition. Maybe it's the invention of the gun into your world, maybe it's a car, maybe it's just the prospect of having more time for leisure. Whatever it is, something will invariably trigger people to defect and become selfish. What I appreciate about capitalism is that it attempts to harness that natural desire that we all have, accepting the good of their invention and labor as a byproduct that aids society.

As for the spread of Communism to the US, I doubt it would have happened. The Socialists kind of had their chance to make it stick in the US, and they were at their strongest up until about the 1920's. As evidenced by voting results in national elections, the Socialists were losing popularity prior to WWII, and afterwards, they had no hope. It doesn't help that Stalin was doing his Great Purges, killing millions of people in the Gulags. The number is not known, but from what I can tell, the average estimate is about as many as Hitler killed in the Holocaust: 11 million people. It's going to be really hard looking like the good guy after something like that. Had he been a more benevolent leader, and had the Communists been more benevolent overall throughout Eastern Europe (not sure that this would have been possible for them, as totalitarianism is almost always cruel in its execution). In short, I think that the idea of Communism is nice, but it is impossible to execute in a large group and over a long period of time. Unfortunately, the results of when it goes wrong are horrifying for the people subjected to it.

 

[Ling Ling]

...

 

[Islam Imamate]

As for the spread of Communism to the US, I doubt it would have happened. The Socialists kind of had their chance to make it stick in the US, and they were at their strongest up until about the 1920's. As evidenced by voting results in national elections, the Socialists were losing popularity prior to WWII, and afterwards, they had no hope. It doesn't help that Stalin was doing his Great Purges, killing millions of people in the Gulags. The number is not known, but from what I can tell, the average estimate is about as many as Hitler killed in the Holocaust: 11 million people. It's going to be really hard looking like the good guy after something like that. Had he been a more benevolent leader, and had the Communists been more benevolent overall throughout Eastern Europe (not sure that this would have been possible for them, as totalitarianism is almost always cruel in its execution). In short, I think that the idea of Communism is nice, but it is impossible to execute in a large group and over a long period of time. Unfortunately, the results of when it goes wrong are horrifying for the people subjected to it.

Stalinism is the go to black mark in the history of communism but I think the history of that period is a bit one sided. Churchill is lionized because he fought against the Nazis and vigorously argued against fascism during the rise of Hitler but he oversaw the starvation of 3 million Indians in the Bengal. That was the result of imperial policy, which funneled food stuffs out of India for the war effort, but also capitalist incentives as colonial merchants horded the food stuffs to raise its demand further and sell it at its peak price.

I think a key factor here is the mitigating effect of democracy on both systems. The Soviet Union was undemocratic and thus unresponsive to the needs of those it ruled over. The "free trade" policies of the British Empire were also undemocratic to most of its constituents as they had no say in the allocation of their own resources, it was all determined by the market as structured by British imperialists. And yet history remembers one as a hero and the other a villain. I don't want to imply Churchill was as bad as Stalin but his crimes are not held against him the way Stalin's are.

Marxist ideas about socialized control and worker control of firms have seen some success in Northern Europe so its not like those ideas have no potential. It needs a democratic leash to make sure the horrors of 20th century communism aren't repeated. But the same is true for capitalism.

 

[Ling Ling]

I'd like to go more into whether or not the propagation of Communism is a subversive act as opposed to a persuasive act, but i'm limited on quotes as mobile is a bitch. I can however, speak as to the nature of the "not real communism" argument and why those criticisms tend to fall flat to Marxist adherents.

Marx and Engels understood very well the necessity of Proletarian Internationalism, or a world revolution. It's foundational theory for Marxists, Capitalism is an international economic theory, and has moving parts and bulwarks that contribute to its ongoing existence throughout the world. Without suppressing those bulwarks and navigating those moving parts, Communism (being a siezing of power by workers) was doomed to fail as Bourgeois classes would inevitably work to restore the status quo by utilizing economic weapons to "starve the beast" so to speak. As we can see, that's exactly what happened. Though Marxist theory did spread across the world, Capitalist countries used every tool in their belt to suppress any tangible international revolution, hence Stalin's renunciation of the international goal and focus on "Socialism within one state". (See: "Problems of Leninism", J. V. Stalin)

Absent from those pressures, Communist societies can very well thrive given acceptable inputs. Look no further than Hutterites in the good ol US of A. They own communally, work communally, and are thriving just fine. And they're not removed from the effects of modern society either, they simply aren't the target of animus that could potentially destroy their community from the outside. Now the Hutterites are not Communists (as they don't adhere to marxist philosophy in any appreciable form), but their society is a case study in the success of communal societies when allowed to exist unmolested.

Were Stalin not so opposed to classical Marxism (and really, not so devoted to his own cult of Soviet personality), you could very well have seen Internationalism take root in Great Powers around the world. The point is that this shift was a response to the issues of revolutions failing around the globe as a result of Capitalist intervention, not an intended result of the philosophy. The theory is sound, the execution (as a result of historical factors) is where we delineate Soviet Communism from True Communism as Marx (and Lenin to an extent) envisioned it.

So as long as there is no competition from other systems, it will work great ?

 

[Ling Ling]

A friend of mine said he thinks communism would be great for a small island like Aruba or something. I agree, I don't think Marxist systems scale up well as evidenced by the Soviet and Chinese experience. If any Marxist systems have potential I think its the more anarchist ones and not the statist ones and even then I see no reason to attempt a far left anarchist reform/revolution in the stable democratic capitalist nations.

The people who should make use of those ideas are those of the third world where the nationalist, capitalist structures imposed via colonialism have consistently failed. For instance, the Kurds used to be Leninists but now they've moved towards more democratic, anarchist ideas and their political experiment seems promising relative to the corruption and exploitation seen in the national governments of the Arab states around them. I think that model can work for other less stable and splintered, tribal countries of the region like Yemen, Libya, and Afghanistan.

My friend thinks so too. Maybe they could try it on a small island like Cuba, would probably be a great success.

 

[Islam Imamate]

My friend thinks so too. Maybe they could try it on a small island like Cuba, would probably be a great success.

Cuba ain't great but honestly I'd rather be born there than most Latin American countries.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

My friend thinks so too. Maybe they could try it on a small island like Cuba, would probably be a great success.

I wonder what Cuba could have been if they weren't embargo'd to Bolivia.

 

[Broken arrow]

How in the fuck are people actually wanting socialism? I don't know if it's real but there seems to be quickly growing movement in that direction and it's extremely upsetting if real.

Isn't this why we fought WW2? These people probably have grandparents or great-grandparents that fought against this ideology.

It's like we are living in bizzaro world

 

[Anung Un Rama]

How in the fuck are people actually wanting socialism? I don't know if it's real but there seems to be quickly growing movement in that direction and it's extremely upsetting if real.

Isn't this why we fought WW2? These people probably have grandparents or great-grandparents that fought against this ideology.

It's like we are living in bizzaro world

No, it's not why we fought WWII.

 

[Islam Imamate]

How in the fuck are people actually wanting socialism? I don't know if it's real but there seems to be quickly growing movement in that direction and it's extremely upsetting if real.

Isn't this why we fought WW2? These people probably have grandparents or great-grandparents that fought against this ideology.

It's like we are living in bizzaro world

Huh? We were allies with literally Stalin back then.

 

[Falsedawn]

Please understand that to people who don't believe in Communism, this may sound an awful lot like a suicide pact. "For this work, we are all going to have to jump in." And according to Marxist theory, as evidenced by its dependency on internationalism, it requires that at least many of the world powers adopt this thinking all at the same time and with the same goals in mind. In a lot of ways, it comes down to Game Theory. In the Prisoner's Dilemna, it always benefits the individual to defect. In terms of nation-states, defecting on Communism can either be not signing up to go down with the Red ship, or it could be a way to become a global power as everyone else signs on board. Getting all these people to believe the same things at the same time, working towards the same goal, seems far too hopeful.

I agree that communal societies can and have worked. To debate this would be to deny history. The Native Hawaiians even adopted these kinds of ideas. But what inevitably happens in an increasingly globalized economy is the influx of new ideas, new motivations, and new sources of competition. Maybe it's the invention of the gun into your world, maybe it's a car, maybe it's just the prospect of having more time for leisure. Whatever it is, something will invariably trigger people to defect and become selfish. What I appreciate about capitalism is that it attempts to harness that natural desire that we all have, accepting the good of their invention and labor as a byproduct that aids society.

As for the spread of Communism to the US, I doubt it would have happened. The Socialists kind of had their chance to make it stick in the US, and they were at their strongest up until about the 1920's. As evidenced by voting results in national elections, the Socialists were losing popularity prior to WWII, and afterwards, they had no hope. It doesn't help that Stalin was doing his Great Purges, killing millions of people in the Gulags. The number is not known, but from what I can tell, the average estimate is about as many as Hitler killed in the Holocaust: 11 million people. It's going to be really hard looking like the good guy after something like that. Had he been a more benevolent leader, and had the Communists been more benevolent overall throughout Eastern Europe (not sure that this would have been possible for them, as totalitarianism is almost always cruel in its execution). In short, I think that the idea of Communism is nice, but it is impossible to execute in a large group and over a long period of time. Unfortunately, the results of when it goes wrong are horrifying for the people subjected to it.

The necessity of internationalism isn't that everyone has to be doing it at the same time for the system to work, it was to protect against conflict. Marx (correctly) theorized that Capitalist regimes would see the threat of a workers uprising and use their power and wealth to stop that by any means necessary, up to and including going to war with anyone necessary to stop it from occurring. He understood power dynamics to a far greater extent than people give him credit for, hence the necessity of international action to protect against those external forces. We understand today the necessity of international action due to historical circumstances, but even that is tinged with historical bias due to anti-communist action throughout the western world. Had we not seen that push back, Internationalism would be seen as a historical relic of paranoid theorists , and actually would disprove Marx entirely due to it cutting down at the knees, a core part of his philosophy. In a way, we're responsible for Marxism still being seen as valid, because we (as a state apparatus) along with the western world, acted exactly as Marx predicted.

As for the US, you can't understate the importance of the First Red Scare in blunting communist advancement in the US. There was a palpable fear after WW1 that the Marxists were coming to the US, and our burgeoning labor movements were used as a scapegoat to fuel hyper-nationalist sentiments and rout it before it became a real issue. We had a disproportionate response to a problem that didn't even exist yet, of course we weren't going to embrace socialism wholesale. If not for that first red scare, you very well may have seen a President Eugene Debs instead of Harding.

So as long as there is no competition from other systems, it will work great ?

It's not even a requirement that no competition exist, so long as external entities are not devoting their entire existence to "stopping the communist threat" and trying to kill the system from the outside.

 

[sub_thug]

Stalinism is the go to black mark in the history of communism but I think the history of that period is a bit one sided. Churchill is lionized because he fought against the Nazis and vigorously argued against fascism during the rise of Hitler but he oversaw the starvation of 3 million Indians in the Bengal. That was the result of imperial policy, which funneled food stuffs out of India for the war effort, but also capitalist incentives as colonial merchants horded the food stuffs to raise its demand further and sell it at its peak price.

I think a key factor here is the mitigating effect of democracy on both systems. The Soviet Union was undemocratic and thus unresponsive to the needs of those it ruled over. The "free trade" policies of the British Empire were also undemocratic to most of its constituents as they had no say in the allocation of their own resources, it was all determined by the market as structured by British imperialists. And yet history remembers one as a hero and the other a villain. I don't want to imply Churchill was as bad as Stalin but his crimes are not held against him the way Stalin's are.

Marxist ideas about socialized control and worker control of firms have seen some success in Northern Europe so its not like those ideas have no potential. It needs a democratic leash to make sure the horrors of 20th century communism aren't repeated. But the same is true for capitalism.

History is written by the victors, so I get where you are coming from. All leaders and systems do some good and all leaders and systems do some evil. But it's important not to paint things as equivalent without regard to context.

Well, then the argument isn't really about the virtues and flaws of communism then. Democracy and communism are political systems, while capitalism and socialism are economic ones.

We are branching into different territory, as now we are discussing the merits and flaws of a centralized economy. In Northern Europe, a more regulated system (although I don't think it's fair to call it socialism) has worked. But these economies are generally pretty small, the countries are not dependent on exports to make money, and the societies in question haven't had much in the way of economic inequality/large amounts of low-income areas. I don't think that it's a clear template for the US moving forward. I happen to think that we generally have it pretty much right with having a smaller safety net and more room to take chances and innovate.

 

[Ling Ling]

Not only did you agree with me (in a bitchy, "i'm not going to admit you're right" kind of way), you levied a vapid criticism that i've already addressed. You can't disprove the effectiveness of command economies in general, so how can you say that "human nature" tanks Communism?

Talk about a swing and a miss, jesus.



I just want to make a point that you didn't address any of the factors that provide pressure on Capitalist societies to consider Communism as a viable economic philosophy. That's what it's all about. Dollars and cents. Labor and capital. You've promoted "individuality" and "innovation" as viable outputs from our system as if individuality is going to put food on the table. You think Marx's personal character is a viable rebuttal against hard economic forces that are proving themselves as relevant factors in the current day, and then you extol the virtue of Capitalist society for providing good feelings when people want meat and bread.

This is exactly why this shift is occurring, because we give the people ideals but neglect their base needs (which you seem to see as unimportant as the value of labor itself, percieved or otherwise). You've illustrated exactly why our system is unjust, and the irony is that this mindset is far more akin to the Soviets in 1990 than it is to any other remotely healthy society throughout history.

When "fair competition" is held as a supposed virtue of Capitalism, is there any wonder that people are embracing Marxism openly? We literally have a society of haves and have nots by design, and the haves are crushing the have nots by the throat. Keep talking about those good feelings and virtues if you want, but don't be surprised when the backlash comes back en masse when it comes time to pay the proletariat piper.



If you had any integrity, you'd admit that "introducing socialism" under Chavez brought immense gains to Venezuela, and that Maduro differs in a fundamental nature with regard to policy, diplomacy, and vision for the country.

But you don't, and like the intellectual midget you are, you think a meme that says "DUH SOCIALISM" is enough to sum up the multiple internal and external factors that comprise the issues Venezuela is facing.

You don't need to write a book, you just have to have a base level understanding of things that can't be copied and pasted from echo chambers where gish gallops and memes reign supreme. You've been evaluated, and you're about as insightful as steaming dogshit in the morning. Congrats.

You think that the " effectiveness of command economies" can't be disproven ? Hmm let's see we have the Soviet Union, North Korea, Cuba and Burma to look to. 5 year plan, failure, blame external forces, make new 5 year plan, fail, blame external forces, massive shortages of basic goods, blame external forces, commence show trials of saboteurs, crush the most basic human freedoms, yep they are effective all right. Communism is an unmitigated failure. Its supporters always say it wasn't " true " communism yet talk about so called capitalist countries as if they are examples of true capitalism. There has never been a " true " version of either. In western countries there have always been controls and mixed economies. There are 2 measures which are exceedingly simple, that are worthwhile to consider when discussing communism. The first is that in every country that has attempted a communist system, there has been massive suppression of human freedom, massive indoctrination of its citizens, incredible hardships suffered by the citizens, and an incredible amount of human casualties. In the Soviet Union and China alone there have been approximately 100 million human beings killed by the Government. We discuss numbers like these often without really thinking about the significance. That is a massive extermination of innocent life.
Since the dawn of communism we have seen countless people struggle to escape these systems of oppression. To me that tells the story much more than your assertion of superior intellect or understanding of Marxist theory. The most uneducated people seem to know what you probably never will. That they want to live in a non communist country and will risk their own lives, as well as their children, to try to do so. Perhaps the next time a mother sets sail on a flimsy raft with her baby trying to traverse 90 miles of ocean to reach the USA you could educate her about why she is so wrong and convince her to set sail back to Cuba.

 

[Broken arrow]

No, it's not why we fought WWII.

I'm a firefighter not a history expert so you'll have to forgive my ignorance. I have always thought that we joined WW2 after Japan attacked us to help stop Hitler, Mussolini and their ideology from spreading across Europe?

 

[MicroBrew]

Conservatives erupted with rage, and the dust up—which has forced West Point to issue a statement condemning the tweet, saying that “Rapone's actions in no way reflect the values of the U.S. Military Academy or the U.S. Army”—helps to sum up just how polarized and surreal online politics have become in the age of President Donald Trump.

Triggered snowflake conservatives, what else is new.

 

[sub_thug]

The necessity of internationalism isn't that everyone has to be doing it at the same time for the system to work, it was to protect against conflict. Marx (correctly) theorized that Capitalist regimes would see the threat of a workers uprising and use their power and wealth to stop that by any means necessary, up to and including going to war with anyone necessary to stop it from occurring. He understood power dynamics to a far greater extent than people give him credit for, hence the necessity of international action to protect against those external forces. We understand today the necessity of international action due to historical circumstances, but even that is tinged with historical bias due to anti-communist action throughout the western world. Had we not seen that push back, Internationalism would be seen as a historical relic of paranoid theorists , and actually would disprove Marx entirely due to it cutting down at the knees, a core part of his philosophy. In a way, we're responsible for Marxism still being seen as valid, because we (as a state apparatus) along with the western world, acted exactly as Marx predicted.

As for the US, you can't understate the importance of the First Red Scare in blunting communist advancement in the US. There was a palpable fear after WW1 that the Marxists were coming to the US, and our burgeoning labor movements were used as a scapegoat to fuel hyper-nationalist sentiments and rout it before it became a real issue. We had a disproportionate response to a problem that didn't even exist yet, of course we weren't going to embrace socialism wholesale. If not for that first red scare, you very well may have seen a President Eugene Debs instead of Harding.

I'm saying that conflict is inevitable. And I don't know if it's entirely about crushing labor, as some people just aren't willing to commit to the idea of Communism. You're always going to have people to who don't want to "get in line," and those are the people who are inherently going to push back against Communism. This goes back to John Locke and the rights to life, liberty, and property. You definitely are trading in parts of the latter two in order for Communism to work. By definition, you are surrendering and sacrificing for the betterment of the state, giving up your personal freedoms and property to the collective. And as we've seen, they may be coming for your life. There hasn't been a Communist state (or even one with a completely centrally-planned economy) that hasn't turned on its people, so it's certainly understandable that people wouldn't be signing up to be part of the next experiment. As far as proving Marx right, maybe. But maybe Marxism failed because it wasn't a very good idea.

This seems like a stretch. I just can't imagine a situation where this ideology sweeps the US and stays long enough for people to want to make those kinds of changes. If you had a President Debs (and that's a huge if), implementing socialist ideas would likely require Constitutional Amendments or a new Constitution outright (the Supreme Court was happy to slap down much of FDR's legislation, and his was relatively moderate compared to what a self-described Socialist would be looking to implement, and you can't really argue with me on that point), would create massive changes, and you'd need Congressional approval for all of it. Do we think that would happen? That just seems like a bridge too far.