Ever since communist government fell in the early 90′s, the American left has had to mask it’s love for Karl Marx. Marx’s murderous philosophy (and that of others who aped him, Mao et al.) has killed millions. This is not an exaggeration, Stalins’s famines, Pol Pots killing fields, China’s “Great Leap Forward” arrested, tortured and killed over 200 million people combined.
Yet as the global economy sputters, the left covers up their crimes. They pine for economic disaster and the fantasy of a government run economy. I had a professor in college that blamed capitalism for the Great Depression and insisted that the New Deal saved the world. It was WWII that saved the economy, as for the world? Many countries turned their backs on capitalism and it took 50 years for them to wise up.
Tell that to the left. For them, the Cold War is a fantasy, history very blurry on our side of the Iron Curtain. Stalin, Mao and Marx are their Draco in Leather pants:
Bold words, especially in academia, where suggesting somebody has communist sympathies — even if he’s carrying a bloody hammer and sickle in one hand and Trotsky’s severed head in the other — instantly draws gleeful cries of “McCarthyism!” I say, if this be blacklisting, make the most of it:
* Miami University’s Robert W. Thurston, in his 1996 book Life and Terror in Stalin’s Russia, rejects the overwhelming evidence that Stalin’s purges took the lives of millions. He concedes only 681,692 executions in the years 1937 and 1938, and a mere 2.5 million arrests. Even using those low-ball figures, that means that nearly one of every 20 adult Soviet males went to prison and that more than 900 of them were executed per day. Nonetheless, Thurston says Stalin has gotten a bad rap: There was no “mass terror…extensive fear did not exist…[and] Stalin was not guilty of mass first-degree murder.”
* Theodore Von Laue, a professor emeritus of history at Clark University, goes further in a 1999 essay in The Historian. He says it’s the damnable Russian peasantry that ought to be begging poor Stalin for forgiveness: “He supervised the near-chaotic transformation of peasant Eurasia into an urban, industrialized superpower under unprecedented adversities. Though his achievements were at the cost of exorbitant sacrifice of human beings and natural resources, they were on a scale commensurate with the cruelty of two world wars. With the heroic help of his uncomprehending people, Stalin provided his country, still highly vulnerable, with a territorial security absent in all history.” And Stalin was no mere poet, Von Laue adds, but a damn fine technocrat too: “The sophisticated design of Soviet totalitarianism has perhaps not been sufficiently appreciated.”
—Fools for Communism,Still apologists after all these years,
Glenn Garvin, Reason Magazine
Those historians, Jackie Kennedy’s “bitter old men”, are bitter because many of them saw the USSR as the shining beacon of hope. They hated America or capitalism so much that a communist state was preferable. They ignored the wars communists started or made worse because one American President dared stand up to the Russian bear:
In his epilogue, with its digressions on the second Iraq war, Meyer flagellates himself for a post-1989 article he wrote that had a “triumphalist tone,” and he urges readers to ponder the wisdom of a Lewis Carroll metaphor: “The world is always partly a mirror of ourselves.” As Meyer explains, “We see all things, enemies especially, through the lens of our own hopes and fears and desires, inevitably distorted.” One wonders if Meyer believes the Soviet Union—responsible for the forced starvation of Ukrainians in the 1930s and for Stalin’s bloody purge trials, to name just two of countless atrocities—deserves that notoriously crude yet ultimately accurate label, “evil empire.”
Reagan, of course, had his flaws, as voluminously documented by scholars, enemies, and sympathizers alike. But Gorbachev, Time’s “Man of the Decade” for the 1980s (unlike Reagan) and a Nobel Peace Prize winner (unlike Reagan), often escapes similar scrutiny. Meyer is more interested in score settling, pointing out that many hard-liners in the Reagan and Bush administrations, several of whom later joined George W. Bush’s administration, misjudged Gorbachev’s seriousness.
Gorbachev’s economic reforms were vague and ad hoc, and they wound up being tremendous failures. …. He avoided repeats of 1956 and 1968, when the Soviet military ruthlessly cracked down on its restive satellites, but did send troops to murder residents of Vilnius, Tblisi, and Baku. As Mary Elise Sarotte observes in her new book 1989: The Struggle to Create Post-Cold War Europe, Gorbachev “had not sought to introduce completely democratic politics into the Soviet Union.”
—The Cold War Never Ended
Michael C. Moynihan , Reason Magazine.
Ronald Regan called a spade a spade. The USSR was an evil empire. Gorby was just a clock punching loser, another apparatchik. He lost when the hard liners tired a coup in 1991. Then the USSR fell. We won.
But twenty years dulls the memories (Again, Michael C. Moynihan) :
In place of the old myths, Meyer erects new ones: “For all the problems they faced…most East Germans had no desire to leave their country,” he insists, “contrary to the impression fostered in the West. Many if not most were perfectly comfortable with the socialist system that guaranteed them work, low-cost housing and free lifelong health care and schooling.” There is no source for this fantastical claim. That a certain measure of nostalgia for the East German dictatorship exists from a distance of 20 years is undeniable, but an opinion poll taken in 1990 showed that 91 percent of East Germans favored unification and, by definition, the dissolution of the “worker’s state.”
Writing In the Wall Street Journal, Brian Anderson reviews the concluding volume of the Marxist trilogy by Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri. Hardt and Negri are the authors of Empire (2000), Multitutude (2004) and now Commonwealth. The books are published by Harvard University Press, supported with the surplus value extracted by capitalists from the back of the proletariat.
Anderson is thus well qualified to assess the merits of Commonwealth as he does. He concludes his review on this fitting note: “Commonwealth is a dark, evil book, and it is troubling that it appears under the prestigious imprimatur of Harvard University Press. Countless millions were slaughtered by adherents of Karl Marx in the 20th century. God help us if the scourge returns in the 21st.”
Commies yes, mommies no!
So now that the accounting scandals and bailouts have passed, a new round of parlor pinks it clamoring for Marx. They see the government as more “fair”, “humane” and into “social justice”.
and as the above except shows, ever private property is evil. Bull. That’s just Marxism with the serial number filed off.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Quick quiz: What do these enterprises have in common? Farm and construction machinery, Tupperware, the railroads, Hershey sweets, Yum food brands and Yahoo? Answer: They’re all more profitable than the health insurance industry.
In the health care debate, Democrats and their allies have gone after insurance companies as rapacious profiteers making ”immoral” and ”obscene” returns while ”the bodies pile up.”
Ledgers tell a different reality. Health insurance profit margins typically run about 6 percent, give or take a point or two. That’s anemic compared with other forms of insurance and a broad array of industries, even some beleaguered ones.
FACT CHECK: Health Insurer Profits Not So Fat
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS, October 25, 2009
Like the commies of yore, they demonize the ‘rich’ even if their ‘facts’ are 100% lies.
Contemporary leftists, on the other hand, view their opponents as people you send off to the Gulag, unworthy of any respect, deserving of any kind of low blow, no matter how foul. So you accuse Goldwater of insanity, slander Justice Thomas as a sexual monster, casually publish plays, books, and films calling for the assassination of President Bush, and assault the first serious Republican female candidate at her weakest point — her family. And of course, you scream to high heaven if any form of turnabout occurs in your direction, as in the case of the Obama family, which was declared “off limits” early in the presidential campaign, at the same time that Palin’s family was being stretched on the media rack. (Someday, somebody has to do a study of liberalism and hypocrisy. It’ll be an awful lengthy volume.)—
The Slander Network
By J.R. Dunn, American Thinker
And now that lefties are in control of the levers of power, here comes the push for control:
Flaws in incentive compensation practices were one of many factors contributing to the financial crisis. Inappropriate bonus or other compensation practices can incent senior executives or lower level employees, such as traders or mortgage officers, to take imprudent risks that significantly and adversely affect the firm. With that in mind, the Federal Reserve’s guidance and supervisory reviews cover all employees who have the ability to materially affect the risk profile of an organization, either individually, or as part of a group.—
Federal Reserve Press Release,, quoted by Hotair.
Thank goodness the government of Barack H. Obama dodged the temptation to allow the Party — sorry, I mean the State — to own all industries; that would be Marxism (which would presumably thrill Anita Dunce). Instead, the banks and industries will all be privately owned — but the owners will take orders directly from the Party.—
Could See This Coming!
by Dafydd ab Hugh
So despite winning the Cold War, despite being shown that Communism doesn’t work, the left is still trying to take freedom away. They hate the individual, private property and success.
Despite the fact that those thing give them the freedom to spew their hate.
Oh well, Fidel Castro said “history will absolve me.” Hisotry has not been kind to Marx et al. Hisotry, despite the lefts attempts to warp it, will show that the left is still made of fail.
The Iron Lady on socialism.
H/T: SondraK, Instapundit and