Comments on: What’s in a name? A lot, apparently, when you’re talking about Andy Stern and communism.

By: suek

suek — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 15:43:41 +0000

>>Communists are for an expanded state, liberals are for an expanded state, therefore …. liberals are communists?>>
We’re talking modern Liberals – those lefties who have misnamed themselves in order to cover their intentions … which seem always to be exactly opposite from their nomenclature – not classical liberals. And yes. In this case, Liberals are – for the most part – communists. Some of them know it, some of them don’t.
>>C’mon, guys. It would be just as valid (i.e. not valid at all) to conclude that communists are liberals.>>

No…that’s a logical fault – I’ve forgotten the name of it. It’s in the category of “all dogs are animals, therefore all animals are dogs”. Something about the general and the specific.
>> making facile identities gets in the way of serious argument, and makes us look like idiots.>>

Statists fall into several categories, of which communism is one. Communism is a philosophy of totalitarianism under a single world wide government. How does that differ from the philosophy of Liberals today? What makes someone look like an idiot is not recognizing the reality when it stares them in the face.

>>the real question is why liberals abandon their liberal ideals regarding, for example, free speech, when it comes to communism.>>

Because they aren’t really liberals. And they don’t really believe in free speech. Because deep in their hearts, they really are communists. No matter how many books are written about how they’re not.

By: Doug1943

Doug1943 — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 11:01:13 +0000

Communists are for an expanded state, liberals are for an expanded state, therefore …. liberals are communists? C’mon, guys. It would be just as valid (i.e. not valid at all) to conclude that communists are liberals.
It may be fun to wind liberals up by pointing out their similarity with totalitarians, but making facile identities gets in the way of serious argument, and makes us look like idiots.
There is a serious case to be made about liberals and leftist totalitarians. It would start with a factual recounting of how many liberals have always been soft on the latter — starting with Ring Lardner in the 20s, going through the Popular Front period of the 30s and 40s, and then looking at the New Left-influenced liberalism of the 70s (which lives on today), which abandoned its fascination with the grey, boring USSR and transferred its apologetics to the hip, groovy Third World variety of totalitarian, like Fidel and Ho. But the real question is why liberals abandon their liberal ideals regarding, for example, free speech, when it comes to communism.
There are a number of good, scholarly books written on this whole subject, or on aspects of it. Some have been mentioned here. It would be useful to put together an annotated list of them, and then post it in as many places as possible, for people who are interested in this subject.

By: Danny Lemieux

Danny Lemieux — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 03:48:53 +0000

Can we agree on the term “fascist”?

By: Bookworm

Bookworm — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 03:35:55 +0000

I’ll agree with your quibble, Charlie, although communism certainly fits comfortably within that umbrella — and it made for a neater post.

By: Charlie (Colorado)

Charlie (Colorado) — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 03:33:05 +0000

I’d quibble that this isn’t specifically “communist” but it is authoritarian and totalitarian.

By: Are Labor Unions Anti-Communist? « NewsReal Blog

Are Labor Unions Anti-Communist? « NewsReal Blog — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 01:08:29 +0000

[...] Bookworm expands on Kathy Shaidle’s post today: One of my favorite books, and one I highly recommend, is Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism. The title is self-explanatory, so I won’t belabor what you’ll find when you read it. I mention it here because I believe it was in that book that I read that, from the 1950s through the 1970s, one of the staunchest anti-Communist forces in America was . . . wait for it . . . the AFL-CIO!* Yup, under the leadership of George Meany, big labor was enormously hostile to Communism. This was not just a symbolic thing. The AFL-CIO’s political and economic heft meant that it could affect America’s political and economic approach to the Soviet Union. For that reason, the AFL-CIO contributed largely to the Soviet Union’s downfall — and the freeing of a significant part of the world as a result. [...]