Skip to main content

My answers to the first question Shaunak posted, and further thoughts

By
Why do Americans hate "Communism"?
It is ironic that Communism is posed as "that which is not pro-Capitalism", or more precisely, "that which is against everything within a Capitalist society, including YOU!" largely by the fact that it was on the wrong side of the iron curtain.
For Marx, Capitalism is not only the object, but also a prerequisite for the communist revolution, as he pointed out at the end of the Principles of Communism, "it is in the interest of the communists to help the bourgeoisie to power as soon as possible in order the sooner to be able to overthrow it." If we look at his historical materialism theory closely, then it is clear that Capitalism is one step in the overall upward moving trend of human social evolution, it is incidental that we, as Marx observed, was positioned in the era when Capitalist arrangement of production was/was going to be no longer fit for the productivity level.
It is not true that Communism is set to destroy all that there is in a Capitalist society/nation, and certainly not in the way that "1984" works. Why, then, do the Americans (bourgeois and proletarians) hate Communism?
It is fallacious to make the argument that McCarthyism was a people's movement, a popular obsession with the "vices" of Communism. What happened was that "(d)uring the late 1940s and 1950s, almost every agency became involved in the anti-Communist crusade." (Schrecker, 1994) By posing Soviet Russia as biggest threat and charging internal communist members and labor leaders and Russian spies (Alger Hiss and the Rosenbergs) and industrial sabotages, the judicial system successfully infuse the image of communists as enemies and criminals. What is worth noting here is that the theme for federal government's anti-Communist agenda is none other than "national security", which rings an ominously familiar tone.

Schrecker, E. (1994). The State Steps In: Setting the Anti-Communist Agenda. THE AGE OF MCCARTHYISM: A BRIEF HISTORY WITH DOCUMENTS. Boston: St. Martin's Press.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Purdue's Professional Revolutionary

By RK
In light of the discussion we had during our advisee meeting on Friday about being strategic in our means as critical scholars I was struck by the words of Lenin who emphasizes the role of the intellectual. He says, "The history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own effort, is able to develop only trade-union consciousness, i.e., it may itself realize the necessity for combining in unions, for fighting against the employers and for striving to compel the government to pass necessary labor legislation, etc. The theory of socialism, however, grew out of the philosophic, historical representatives of the propertied classes, the intellectuals." (pg. 74) This idea of the bourgeois socialist intelligentsia as an instrument of raising consciousness and fomenting dissent is an ideal one I am sure but in contemporary times we, the academics, forming a substantial part of the "intellectual elite", occupy a unique position which forces us into ...
6 comments
Read more

Whose means justifies their end?

By
I spend a lot of my time teaching and disciplining children now-a-days and through these experiences, I have found many similarities in the ways that Marx and Engel construct their arguments for communism and against capitalism, most of which are shaped around the concept of deflection. First, let me provide an example from which my conclusions are built, all of which are inducted from daily experiences. I know that my experience is nothing novel or new, especially if anyone reading this has had the pleasure of working with large groups of kids. In a classroom there is supposed to be only one goal, one guider, and one “law maker” and that lovely job title has been bestowed upon me, the teacher. In trying to achieve my one goal to teach multiplication, I tell every student to be quiet and do their work. While not paying attention, I hear several of the students talking. When I look up, I single out the first one that I see talking (lets call him Crandon). I tell Crandon, “If you continu...
7 comments
Read more

Neoliberalism - Is it a necessary evil?

By
The term 'neoliberalism' came into existence in 1938, but started to get used during the 1960s. It is another label for 'economic liberalism.' However, the leftists use neoliberalism as a pejorative term, showing discontent with the ideologies that neoliberalism brings to the table. The term is also used neutrally though by many political organizations [ source ]. The essence of neoliberalism is quite straight forward - economic control of resources should be transferred (even if partially) from the government to the private sector. The belief is that such actions will make for a better economic system with improved economic productivity, and in the process create an efficient government. However as Dutta & Pal (in press) suggests, ideologies such as neoliberalism is supported and promoted by certain organizations (MNCs, TNCs, certain governments) because it helps them maintain the power structure in their favor, and thus continue to exert control over the alrea...
Post a Comment
Read more