The Death of the Soviet Union Was Not the Death of Communism

National Review ^ | 09/07 09:51 AM | Andy McCarthy

[fiodora]

With due respect, I think Charles Krauthammer had it badly wrong on Van Jones when he said (see post below), "I'm not even disturbed that this guy is a communist. It is not the first time we had a communist in the U.S. government. And anyway, with the death of communism, it is a kind of a pathetic intellectual anachronism to remain a communist."

It should be apparent by now that Communism never died. The Soviet Union died. Being a Communist, or a neocommunist, is not an intellectual anachronism at all — it is quite the fashion in the academy and our other institutions. Does Charles not realize, for example, that Obama's friend Bill Ayers — who proudly calls himself "a small 'c' communist" — was in 2008 elected vice president for curriculum of the American Education Research Association, the nation's largest organization of education professors and researchers? (See Sol Stern's profile of Ayers and education, here). I'm not sure "pathetic" is the right word, but what is a perilous intellectual anachronism is the belief that the communist threat ended 18 years ago.

The Jones incident, moreover, does not indicate that "we had a communist in the U.S. government." To the contrary, as I argued last night, we have a U.S. government in which Van Jones was quite consciously selected because his views are representative of the president who made him the "green jobs czar." Van Jones isn't Alger Hiss. There's nothing covert about him. He didn't snooker Obama into bringing him aboard. He is who he is, and that's why Obama wanted him. Having a Communist in that job was perfect since the "green jobs" initiative is an important part of the hard Left's agenda to use environmentalism as an additional justification for usurping command of the economy.

In fact, the death of the Soviet Union has actually been a boon for neocommunists. Now, Obama and his fellow travelers like Jones, Ayers, Wright, Klonsky, and ACORN, can spout all the same totalitarian, anti-American, central-planning ideas the hard Left has always pushed, but in the abstract — under such mushy labels as "social justice" and "green jobs." That is, they are liberated from having to defend the Soviet Empire, which, until 1991, was a living, breathing, concrete example of how horrific these ideas are when put in practice.

David Horowitz nails this in his terrific book, Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left (Regnery 2004):

Far from instilling humility in progressives …, the collapse of socialism has revived their self-righteousness and reenergized their assault on the democratic West. The disappearance of the Soviet bloc has had only one consequence of note. It has lifted the burden of having to defend … an indefensible regime. Because the utopian vision is no longer anchored in the reality of an actually existing socialist state, the left can now indulge its nihilistic agendas without restraint.

For anyone with common sense and a willingness to look at what we were allowed to learn about Obama's background and associations, nothing about Van Jones is the least bit surprising. Nothing about Obama's penchant for government by radical, unaccountable czars is the least bit surprising. What is surprising is that smart people continue to treat these developments as if they were abberations that somehow happen independent of Obama, as if the president just needs to do a better job of vetting staffers. The selection of Van Jones is who Obama is and what he is about. Bad things are not happening to our president; our president is doing bad things — as we should have known he would.

[RC2]

We are prime for communism. One of our problems is we have this tendency to trust others. Our freedoms actually help promote communism and nazism. We need to outlaw these systems of governing our country. Until we do that, it will always be a problem. We also need to revamp our educational system so our kids find out what these two forms of governing really means Vs our Republic. In other words, another McCarthy era to clean house.

[FR_addict]

I'm surprised at Krauthammer’s naivete.

I believe he is one of the chosen “conservative” journalist that received at invite by Obama. Now half the time he is an apologist for Obama.

[aquila48]

“Duuuuuuuuuuuh! China.”

China may be a dictatorship, but hardly qualifies as communist. They’ve taken to capitalism with a vengeance - that’s why they’re doing so well.

[nufsed]

C=I guess that capitalism thing will wtaer down the ole commie business approach. I think the commisars in the old Soviet Union used to do okay in a bribe system.

[fiodora]

“I believe he is one of the chosen “conservative” journalist that received at invite by Obama.”
YOU’RE 100% CORRECT, and I was extremely upset; however, after that little dinner, something happened... Take a look at this article he wrote back in January 30, 2009.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/29/AR2009012903444.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Every president has the right to portray himself as ushering in a new era of this or that. Obama wants to pursue new ties with Muslim nations, drawing on his own identity and associations. Good. But when his self-inflation as redeemer of U.S.-Muslim relations leads him to suggest that pre-Obama America was disrespectful or insensitive or uncaring of Muslims, he is engaging not just in fiction but in gratuitous disparagement of the country he is now privileged to lead.

[aquila48]

I don’t know if you’ve had a chance to go to China - but I would definitely recommend it. For me it was an incredible eye opener. Turned my preconceived notions upside down.

[353FMG]

Anyone for Communism? Watch its bloody history.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIeics8jHUY

[Artemis Webb]

I am probably the only FReeper who was a big fan of the movie “Reds”.

In it John Reed would enthusiastically talk about communism as being “One Big Union”. This is the same mentality that drives liberals today to think communism is cool. They love the “vision” of economic equality and "social justice".

The problem being that the only way to enforce economic equality is to give absolute power to the state. And absolute power...

well, we all know the rest.

[nufsed]

Cities of Hong Kong, Macao, Shanghai, and Beijing Feb 08.

[aquila48]

“Cities of Hong Kong, Macao, Shanghai, and Beijing Feb 08.”

So what did you think - did it change your mental image or was it what you expected?

[wintertime]

Marxism is our nation’s **most** urgent and serious threat. Government K-12 schools are the Marxists’ **most** powerful and effective weapon.

[Wildbill22]

I think you are right on with Communism being “envy”. The pot of crabs, pulling other crabs down from the edge of the pot to keep them all down resulting in the lowest common denominator..

[Scanian]

You said a mouthful. Communism is a perverse ideology which capitalizes on the worst aspects of human nature—greed and envy, as you say.

Communism is currently very fashionable and hip in certain circles. Someone on this forum posted an observation recently that they saw a Windex commercial in which a Che Guevara poster was shown on a kid’s bedroom wall.

Che, Lenin, the hammer and sickle—those things are incorporated into the pop culture of today. Few worry much about it. Leave it to our failed educational system to create an environment in which butchers like Lenin, Guevara, or Mao would be considered iconic or at least innocuous.

[wintertime]

The disappearance of the Soviet bloc has had only one consequence of note. It has lifted the burden of having to defend … an indefensible regime.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Also...As time passes the horror of the Soviet empire will disappear and remain only in the memories of a diminishing number of elderly voters.

You can be certain that in our Marxist dominated government schools, the Soviets and their evil minions are **not** being taught to the next generation of voters.

As I have posted many times:

Marxism is our nation's most serious threat. Schools are the Marxists’ most powerful weapon against freedom.

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

Krauthammer:"...it is a kind of a pathetic intellectual anachronism to remain a communist."

Well, he has a point there.

But being a wacko nutjob reading Communist treatises does not necessarily mean the guy was a harmless crank. It may be "pathetic" that there are dorks and nerds in the Obama camp who have fantasies about being Marxist or Communist revolutionaries in the Cuban, Soviet, Fabian Socialist, or Maoist traditions, and still be damaging to the country and the Democratic party."Pathetic" in the way cable news anchors get "thrills" up their legs when they hear Obama's voice.

"To the contrary, as I argued last night, we have a U.S. government in which Van Jones was quite consciously selected because his views are representative of the president who made him the "green jobs czar." Van Jones isn't Alger Hiss. There's nothing covert about him. He didn't snooker Obama into bringing him aboard. He is who he is, and that's why Obama wanted him."

That part is worth investigating. What part of Marxism and Communism in Van Jones' ideology does Obama agree with? Or is he claiming he didn't know about this?

[wintertime]

Leave it to our failed educational system
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The educational system is raging success! It is doing **exactly** what its original cheerleaders wanted for America in the mid to late 1800s and early 1900 century. It is turning Americans into compliant workers for the fascist state!

Government schools have been an exercise in socialism since their beginning ( 100 to 150 years ago). It teaches children that the government can take money from their neighbor to pay for a service their parents want for free!

In just one to two generations of learning to be comfortable with government taking money to pay for government schooling welfare to the middle classes, our parents and grandparents voted for FDR, the New Deal, and the income tax! ( It's been downhill ever since.)

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

"Bet you never hear that in the history classes at Harvard, Yale,UCLA, etc. Because the professors probably have the recurrent thought that“Communism will work, it we just give it another chance and do it right” "
10 posted on Monday, September 07, 2009 12:55:54 PM by VOA

They would say that it depends on which form of Communism or Socialism and you would hear a bit about the Swedism, French and British models. But the assumptions of Fabian Socialism and the Frankfurt School would be assumed as true. The whole educational system is pervaded by statism, totalitarianism, Fabian Socialism, secular humanism, and the Frankfurt School. The disciples of the Deweyite agenda are just not that smart.

They haven't studied conservatism, constitutional theory, libertarianism, etc.
Most of them haven't. And they don't even know just how much they don't know.
In five minutes of questioning of the basic assumptions of the Critical Legal Studies he studied at Yale, you would have this guy in stitches chasing his own tail. Marxist materialism is a fraud.

[nufsed]

No, I had stayed up with happenings in China. When we travel we're pretty much city dwellers. Did not care for Shanghai very much. Enjoyed the monuments and wall outside of Beijing. We saw the outside of the Olympic buildings. The people we're being taught to line up for buses in preparation for the Olympics.

If I go again, it will be to visit someone in China or go with a seasoned China traveller.

What was your impression and experience.

[RoadTest]

“The Death of the Soviet Union Was Not the Death of Communism”

THEY EXPORTED IT - - - HERE!

[aquila48]

It’s been several years since I’ve been there. The first time I went was in the mid 90’s when they were at the early stages of transformation. I landed at the old Beijing airport and it was exactly as I imagined - an ugly, lifeless, drab green building with hardly any shops. I was told they were building a brand new airport. Going through immigration was a snap, the inspectors friendly. Then riding through the city you could see signs of the transformations in the many cranes and high rises going up. You could still see some of the old-style depressing, soviet-style building blocks. But in the midst of it all were the little ma and pa businesses crowding all the streets. The energy level really impressed me. They had just opened up private ownership of businesses.

Then each time I went back the place looked more and more like the west. I was impressed with Shanghai - reminded me of san francisco. Great restaurants, lots of things to do beautiful skyscrapers, well dressed people enjoying life, wide streets with big cars. You could feel the rising affluence in the air - capitalism gone wild. Talking politics with locals was no problem.

The only reminder of governmental control was the newsstands - didn’t see many publications. They still have control of the newsprint (at least back a few years ago). But with the internet they can’t keep the people in the dark. The hotel TV had all the western cable channels, together with local content.

My overall impression is that they are becoming more like the way we were and we are becoming more like they were. If things continue like this - I like their future better.