Gunboards Forums banner
1 - 19 of 19 Posts

·
Silver Bullet member
Joined
·
36,239 Posts
McCarthy himself never unearthed a single real communist agent. The USSR intelligence networks had already been wiped out by the FBI, helped by HUAC investigators, well before McCarthy started his Senate hearings. McCarthy just jumped on the communism issue to support his political career.
Read the history of the Alger Hiss case, broken by HUAC, and of the Venona intercepts that revealed Communist penetration of the Roosevelt Administration and Congress before you make any claims that McCarthy did anything but ride on the coattails of the real defenders of the USA against subversion and Soviet intelligence. Starting in WWII the FBI began to roll up the Soviet intelligence and US Communist party networks, well before McCarthy got into politics.
The anti-American left has labeled anti-communism as "McCarthyism" and used McCarthy's bumbling to smear anyone opposed to Communism because he was such an easy target and such a failure.

Read:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0375755365/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top/103-5256439-9503801
http://www.amazon.com/Alger-Hisss-L.../0195153456/ref=sid_dp_dp/103-5256439-9503801
http://www.amazon.com/Denial-Histor...088X/ref=pd_sim_b_title_3/103-5256439-9503801
 

·
Silver Bullet member
Joined
·
36,239 Posts
Dave, you are wound way too tight. You need to loosen up a little.

As to poor ol' George Marshall; he supported enormous consessions to Stalin at Yalta, including turning over Poland to the USSR. He helped consign a billion people to a totalitarian dungeon in China and he played a central role in Truman's firing of General MacArthur.
Poland? Look at a map. The US and Britain supported the legal Polish government in exile, but from 900 miles away, with German territory between Britain and Poland. Stalin set up his own Polish Communist government and used it to rule Poland when he pushed the Germans out.

All the yalta agreements were strictly on the basis of the military situation.

China - The Nationalists were doomed by gross incompetence and corruption. Most US aid might as well have bbeen dumped directly into the black market or just given directly to the Reds. The only competent part of the nationalist government was its propaganda campaign in the USA.

Ever hear of the Marshall Plan? The Greek Civil War? All of our operations against communist infiltration in the governments of western Europe post war? NATO?

MacArthur's military record was pretty bad, long before Korea. Remember "Dougout Doug"? His PR campaigns against the USMC and Navy? His failure to bomb japanese bases when the war started and the incompetent defence of the Phillippines? The horrible New Guinea campaign?
 

·
Silver Bullet member
Joined
·
36,239 Posts
I am not buying the book. That is what libraries are for. I don't think I will sully my personal library unless the book is actually compelling and honest.
This thread has degenerated to a war of "book vs book vs book vs book vs book....." Hairball is right. All too many books written today are so one-sided its ridiculous. Even if an academic historian writes it the purpose is all too often not to determine the truth but to promote his career and tenure prospects by revealing/inventing something controversial. One sided politics, political correctness, fads, and a pick and choose system of ideological construction are rampant in what should be a straight forward examination of the available facts.

In reading or writing history you must remember the following:

1. Newspapers and other remote observers of then current events are often grossly innacurate. Don't forget the account of the newspaper reporter in the Civil War being led out of camp tied to his horse with the plackard "Perjuror of the Press". I NEVER, in my 26 years at NAVAIR HQ, read a Washington Post story on Naval Aviation that didn't contain some glaring and important mistake.
2. The participants, especially writing after the fact, are often self-justifying or partisan.
3. Historians have become one of the most highly politicized, mostly leftist, branches of academia. The attempt 20 years ago to write history teaching standards for American primary and secondary education failed because of this. So any book academic historians write is highly suspect, often no more authoritative than those written by outright ideologists like Ann Coulter.
4. The published results of a right wing reaction to the above may be no less false than the lies of the leftists.

So doing any of your own work on historical episodes, especially political ones like McCarthy's hearings and his anti-communist campaign, require that you do a lot of detective work, maintain an attitude that's unbiased as possible, and use a preponderance of evidentiary facts, not the opinions or blunders of other writers, to determine the truth.

My opinions on McCarthy were developed by considering the contents of the Venona intercepts, the FBI investigations and arrests, the HUAC committee work, and the timeline of all of the preceeding, most of which came before McCarthy got started. Add to this McCarthy's negligible successes in revealing Soviet agents or active communists, and I decided that Senator Mccarthy was merely a political opportunist who did no more than provide a convenient target for the apologists and defenders of Communism.
 

·
Silver Bullet member
Joined
·
36,239 Posts

·
Silver Bullet member
Joined
·
36,239 Posts
Apparently people still don't have any problems with tyrannical government, just so long as they control it.
Enjoying your avatar?

Laws of Congress in Regard to Taxes, Currency and Conscription, Passed February 1864.
35p.
Richmond:
James E. Goode, Senate Printer
1864

CONSCRIPTION LAW.

An act to organize forces to serve during the war.

The congress of the Confederate States of America do enact, That from and after the passage of this act, all white men, residents of the Confederate States, between the ages of seventeen and fifty, shall be in the military service of the Confederate States for the war.

.....SEC. 10. That all laws granting exemptions from military service be and the same are hereby repealed, and hereafter none shall be exempted except the following:


.....II. The vice-president of the Confederate States, the members and officers of congress and of the several state legislatures, and such other confederate and state officers as the president or the governors of the respective states may certify to be necessary for the proper administration of the confederate or state governments, as the case may be.....

V. There shall be exempt one person as overseer or agriculturalist on each farm or plantation upon which there are now and were, on the first day of January last, fifteen able-bodied field hands between the ages of sixteen and fifty, upon the following conditions: 1. This exemption shall only be granted in cases in which there is no white male adult on the farm or plantation not liable to military service, nor unless the person claiming the exemption was, on the first day of January 1864, either the owner and manager or overseer of said plantation



SPEECH OF HON. GEORGE A. GORDON, OF CHATHAM,
ON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE CONSCRIPTION LAWS,
PASSED BY THE CONGRESS OF THE CONFEDERATE STATES,
Delivered in the Senate of Georgia, on Tuesday, 9th December, 1862.

The Committee on Confederate Relations made two reports, one the Majority, and the other the Minority.

The following resolutions were offered by Mr. Gordon as a substitute for both:

"The General Assembly of Georgia, impressed with the conviction that their primary duty at this juncture of the nation's history is to bring this unhallowed war to a successful close, at whatever sacrifice of blood or treasure, do hereby

Resolved, That they will take no action that shall impede the Acts of Congress, commonly called the Conscript Acts.

But, under a deep sense of their obligations to the State, this General Assembly, in the name and behalf of the people of Georgia, do solemnly protest against said Acts as a violation of the Constitution of the Confederate States, and an infringement upon the sovereignty of the several States."


.........And in order that I may show my sincerity, my deep sincerity, in seeking to shut out from this discussion all shade of passion, I desire to say, before beginning my argument, that I am willing to submit to the enforcement of the Conscription Acts, notwithstanding I shall endeavor to demonstrate that they are unconstitutional. My purpose is to whip this fight, and I am willing, rather than submit to the tyranny of Lincoln, to yield obedience for a time to worse than oriental despotism.
 

·
Silver Bullet member
Joined
·
36,239 Posts
I don't think anyone is disputing that. What is in dispute is whether McCarthy was a true Patriot or a grandstanding, self serving a**hole.
The timeline is the evidence of McCarthy's a**holeism. Well before he started waving his pieces of paper around the FBI and HUAC had cleaned the Soviet agents out of their government positions. Starting in 1946 the VENONA project, a massive US-UK decryption effort, had revealed the identity of many soviet agents in the USA and broke the atom bomb espionage plot. Klause Fuchs was arrested in Britain in late 1949 and confessed in january 1950. This led to the arrests of the participants in early 1950.

Mccarthy didn't give his first speech on communist infiltration until Feb 9. 1950, and there's no evidence he did any investigation on his own except for plagarising the work of other Congressional committees. His first revealing of names, for example, were from the Lee List, done by the House Appropriations Committee 3 years earlier. And that list was only complaints about insufficient background investigations, not suspected spies.

There's no question that McCarthy was just a grandstander, exploiting the hard work of others in digging out real Soviet agents for his own purposes and imputing communist affiliations to many who had stupidly dabbled in marxism during the depths of the Depression. Meanwhile he had no idea whatsoever about how to develop any information of his own on the very real threat of soviet espionage.

I suggest you read 2 books:

Venona: Decoding Soviet Espionage in America. By John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr. Yale University Press. 475 pp. $30.

The Haunted Wood: Soviet Espionage in America—The Stalin Era. By Allen Weinstein and Alexander Vassiliev. Random House. 402 pp. $30.


From a review by Andrew J. Bacevich


...Venona and The Haunted Wood show that espionage at the behest of the Soviet Union was much more extensive than previously recognized. To dismiss it as the handiwork of a few misguided souls is to understate the problem by an order of magnitude. The existence of a network on such a vast scale effectively demolishes the notion of "McCarthyism before McCarthy"—the thesis advanced by some scholars that internal security reforms instituted by the Truman Administration after World War II were irrational, unnecessary, and motivated by political expediency. The gist of this argument is that Truman ignited the anti–Communist mania that McCarthy himself exploited shortly thereafter. In fact, Truman was responding to a serious threat that his predecessor had allowed to fester.....
 

·
Silver Bullet member
Joined
·
36,239 Posts
Another example of Mccarthy's trying to boost his career on the work of others is the case of John S. Service.

Service was a career foreign service diplomat, served in China in WWII, and had close relationships with and sympathy for the Communists there. Ostensibly this was because he believed they'd eventually take over China and we'd have to have relationships with them.

But recently even his closest friends and admirers have admitted it went way beyond that.

Service was under attack from the FBI from 1945 on, before McCarthy even got into politics. After the US attorney failed to get Service indicted in the Amerasia Case he was supposedly cleared but relegated to assignmnts where he couldn't do any damage. In 1950 due to Mccarthy's ranting about communists in the State Department, Service was fired but then reinstated 7 years later after a Supreme Court decision. He retired in 1962 after the State Department refused to promote him or assign him to any important post. Since then the Leftist apologists for Communism have held him up as a blameless, dedicated foreign service officer and a victim of McCarthy.

More recently it's been revealed in a new book and the Wall Street Journal review of it, that Service deliberately gave a US communist sympathizer a top secret document, and deliberately covered up Mao's persecution and executions of his supposed internal party enemies in Yunnan Province. So the FBI and Service's enemies were right in 1945. they just didn't have the evidence, and McCarthy, in 1950, presented none of his own, the reason Service had to be reinstated after being fired. See: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704398304574598443437286438.html

In the Service case McCarthy was absolutely useless, as usual, just waved around papers from the old 1945 indictment attempt. All the work revealing Service had been done by the FBI but its case was weak since they never found out about his passing the document or covering up the executions. But continuing doubts about Service were strong enough to sideline him as a potential security risk, and keep him in positions where he was harmless, both before and after McCarthy's ultimately futile attemt to get him fired.
 

·
Silver Bullet member
Joined
·
36,239 Posts
YAWN
 

·
Silver Bullet member
Joined
·
36,239 Posts
Dirty names with no more substance than opinion, is an attempt at making the logical fallacy of "Poisoning the Well".
"Jane, you ignorant slut"
Dan Aykroyd to Jane Curtin
Saturday Night Live, Weekend Update, "Point/Counterpoint" circa 1977
 
  • Like
Reactions: Amtraker

·
Silver Bullet member
Joined
·
36,239 Posts
So you mean that the politicians, businessmen and press of that day and age were all gullible? In the thirties it would seem that most right wingers and conservatives regarded Hitler as the one hope the right wing had to oppose the left wing....
Probably because all that they knew of the Nazis was what they read in the newspapers. The Nazis used socialism just like Stalin used communism: As the weapon of absolute dictatorship. Some in the German Army and business community deluded themselves into thinking that Socialism was just a political ploy of Hitlers. To late they found out that Socialism was a powerful weapon in his hands.

National Socialism is as far from any classical Liberal scheme of government as possible. It is similar to Libertarianism in that it assumes that forcing their governing formula on everyone and everything would bring on utopia. And I have no doubt the Libertarians of the MB stripe would eventually have to resort to the means of Hitler and Stalin to get their way on building a "utopia". That Mauserboy can't tolerate any dissent from his posts is a pretty good indication of what he'd do if given the chance.

Here's the 15 most socialist points of the 25 Point Program of the National Socialist German Workers' Party . That's the official name of the NAtional Socialists, AKA Nazis. The rest were racist, german nationalist, and anti-semitic.


7.We demand that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens. If it is impossible to sustain the total population of the State, then the members of foreign nations (non-citizens) are to be expelled from the Reich.
9.All citizens must have equal rights and obligations.
10.The first obligation of every citizen must be to work both spiritually and physically. The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality, but must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of all. Consequently we demand:
11.Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of debt (interest)-slavery.
12.In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
13.We demand the nationalisation of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).
14.We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.
15.We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.
16.We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.
17.We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land.
18.We demand struggle without consideration against those whose activity is injurious to the general interest. Common national criminals, usurers, profiteers and so forth are to be punished with death, without consideration of confession or race.
19.We demand substitution of a German common law in place of the Roman Law serving a materialistic world-order.
20.The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program, to enable every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education and subsequently introduction into leading positions. The plans of instruction of all educational institutions are to conform with the experiences of practical life. The comprehension of the concept of the State must be striven for by the school [Staatsbuergerkunde] as early as the beginning of understanding. We demand the education at the expense of the State of outstanding intellectually gifted children of poor parents without consideration of position or profession.
21.The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young.
24.We demand freedom of religion for all religious denominations within the state so long as they do not endanger its existence or oppose the moral senses of the Germanic race. The Party as such advocates the standpoint of a positive Christianity without binding itself confessionally to any one denomination. It combats the Jewish-materialistic spirit within and around us, and is convinced that a lasting recovery of our nation can only succeed from within on the framework: The good of the state before the good of the individual.
 

·
Silver Bullet member
Joined
·
36,239 Posts
Part 1

If mauserboy dares respond I'll post the other 3 parts

The Ludwig von Mises Institute

Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian
Mises Daily: Friday, November 11, 2005 by George Reisman

My purpose today is to make just two main points: (1) To show why Nazi Germany was a socialist state, not a capitalist one. And (2) to show why socialism, understood as an economic system based on government ownership of the means of production, positively requires a totalitarian dictatorship.

The identification of Nazi Germany as a socialist state was one of the many great contributions of Ludwig von Mises.

When one remembers that the word "Nazi" was an abbreviation for "der Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiters Partei — in English translation: the National Socialist German Workers' Party — Mises's identification might not appear all that noteworthy. For what should one expect the economic system of a country ruled by a party with "socialist" in its name to be but socialism?

Nevertheless, apart from Mises and his readers, practically no one thinks of Nazi Germany as a socialist state. It is far more common to believe that it represented a form of capitalism, which is what the Communists and all other Marxists have claimed.

The basis of the claim that Nazi Germany was capitalist was the fact that most industries in Nazi Germany appeared to be left in private hands.

What Mises identified was that private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners.

De facto government ownership of the means of production, as Mises termed it, was logically implied by such fundamental collectivist principles embraced by the Nazis as that the common good comes before the private good and the individual exists as a means to the ends of the State. If the individual is a means to the ends of the State, so too, of course, is his property. Just as he is owned by the State, his property is also owned by the State.

But what specifically established de facto socialism in Nazi Germany was the introduction of price and wage controls in 1936. These were imposed in response to the inflation of the money supply carried out by the regime from the time of its coming to power in early 1933. The Nazi regime inflated the money supply as the means of financing the vast increase in government spending required by its programs of public works, subsidies, and rearmament. The price and wage controls were imposed in response to the rise in prices that began to result from the inflation.

The effect of the combination of inflation and price and wage controls is shortages, that is, a situation in which the quantities of goods people attempt to buy exceed the quantities available for sale.

Shortages, in turn, result in economic chaos. It's not only that consumers who show up in stores early in the day are in a position to buy up all the stocks of goods and leave customers who arrive later, with nothing — a situation to which governments typically respond by imposing rationing. Shortages result in chaos throughout the economic system. They introduce randomness in the distribution of supplies between geographical areas, in the allocation of a factor of production among its different products, in the allocation of labor and capital among the different branches of the economic system.

In the face of the combination of price controls and shortages, the effect of a decrease in the supply of an item is not, as it would be in a free market, to raise its price and increase its profitability, thereby operating to stop the decrease in supply, or reverse it if it has gone too far. Price control prohibits the rise in price and thus the increase in profitability. At the same time, the shortages caused by price controls prevent increases in supply from reducing price and profitability. When there is a shortage, the effect of an increase in supply is merely a reduction in the severity of the shortage. Only when the shortage is totally eliminated does an increase in supply necessitate a decrease in price and bring about a decrease in profitability.

As a result, the combination of price controls and shortages makes possible random movements of supply without any effect on price and profitability. In this situation, the production of the most trivial and unimportant goods, even pet rocks, can be expanded at the expense of the production of the most urgently needed and important goods, such as life-saving medicines, with no effect on the price or profitability of either good. Price controls would prevent the production of the medicines from becoming more profitable as their supply decreased, while a shortage even of pet rocks prevented their production from becoming less profitable as their supply increased.

As Mises showed, to cope with such unintended effects of its price controls, the government must either abolish the price controls or add further measures, namely, precisely the control over what is produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it is distributed, which I referred to earlier. The combination of price controls with this further set of controls constitutes the de facto socialization of the economic system. For it means that the government then exercises all of the substantive powers of ownership.

This was the socialism instituted by the Nazis. And Mises calls it socialism on the German or Nazi pattern, in contrast to the more obvious socialism of the Soviets, which he calls socialism on the Russian or Bolshevik pattern.
 

·
Silver Bullet member
Joined
·
36,239 Posts
You notice the Boy's feeble reply is that we aren't arguing about historical facts but about an argument for argument's sake over the definition of the Left, and/or National Socialism, and/or Socialism. Saying "The Left" isn't nationalist ignores the many occasions when socialists of all types used nationalism for their totalitarian goals. Rent a copy of Eisenstein's "Alexander Nevsky" then read up on the treatment of various non-slavic minorities in the USSR, the Vietnamese boat people (ethnic chinese), Tibetans, etc.... "The Left" wasn't nationalist when it suited the Comintern and Socialist International's dreams of world conquest. it was nationalist whenever it could use nationalism or racism as a rallying cry, to repress its enemies and cement its power.

What the hell. I'll dump the rest on the twirp in one big lump.

Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian
Mises Daily: Friday, November 11, 2005 by George Reisman

Part 2

Of course, socialism does not end the chaos caused by the destruction of the price system. It perpetuates it. And if it is introduced without the prior existence of price controls, its effect is to inaugurate that very chaos. This is because socialism is not actually a positive economic system. It is merely the negation of capitalism and its price system. As such, the essential nature of socialism is one and the same as the economic chaos resulting from the destruction of the price system by price and wage controls. (I want to point out that Bolshevik-style socialism's imposition of a system of production quotas, with incentives everywhere to exceed the quotas, is a sure formula for universal shortages, just as exist under all around price and wage controls.)

At most, socialism merely changes the direction of the chaos. The government's control over production may make possible a greater production of some goods of special importance to itself, but it does so only at the expense of wreaking havoc throughout the rest of the economic system. This is because the government has no way of knowing the effects on the rest of the economic system of its securing the production of the goods to which it attaches special importance.

The requirements of enforcing a system of price and wage controls shed major light on the totalitarian nature of socialism — most obviously, of course, on that of the German or Nazi variant of socialism, but also on that of Soviet-style socialism as well.

We can start with the fact that the financial self-interest of sellers operating under price controls is to evade the price controls and raise their prices. Buyers otherwise unable to obtain goods are willing, indeed, eager to pay these higher prices as the means of securing the goods they want. In these circumstances, what is to stop prices from rising and a massive black market from developing?

The answer is a combination of severe penalties combined with a great likelihood of being caught and then actually suffering those penalties. Mere fines are not likely to provide much of a deterrent. They will be regarded simply as an additional business expense. If the government is serious about its price controls, it is necessary for it to impose penalties comparable to those for a major felony.

But the mere existence of such penalties is not enough. The government has to make it actually dangerous to conduct black-market transactions. It has to make people fear that in conducting such a transaction they might somehow be discovered by the police, and actually end up in jail. In order to create such fear, the government must develop an army of spies and secret informers. For example, the government must make a storekeeper and his customer fearful that if they engage in a black-market transaction, some other customer in the store will report them.

Because of the privacy and secrecy in which many black-market transactions can be conducted, the government must also make anyone contemplating a black-market transaction fearful that the other party might turn out to be a police agent trying to entrap him. The government must make people fearful even of their long-time associates, even of their friends and relatives, lest even they turn out to be informers.

And, finally, in order to obtain convictions, the government must place the decision about innocence or guilt in the case of black-market transactions in the hands of an administrative tribunal or its police agents on the spot. It cannot rely on jury trials, because it is unlikely that many juries can be found willing to bring in guilty verdicts in cases in which a man might have to go to jail for several years for the crime of selling a few pounds of meat or a pair of shoes above the ceiling price.

In sum, therefore, the requirements merely of enforcing price-control regulations is the adoption of essential features of a totalitarian state, namely, the establishment of the category of "economic crimes," in which the peaceful pursuit of material self-interest is treated as a criminal offense, and the establishment of a totalitarian police apparatus replete with spies and informers and the power of arbitrary arrest and imprisonment.

Clearly, the enforcement of price controls requires a government similar to that of Hitler's Germany or Stalin's Russia, in which practically anyone might turn out to be a police spy and in which a secret police exists and has the power to arrest and imprison people. If the government is unwilling to go to such lengths, then, to that extent, its price controls prove unenforceable and simply break down. The black market then assumes major proportions. (Incidentally, none of this is to suggest that price controls were the cause of the reign of terror instituted by the Nazis. The Nazis began their reign of terror well before the enactment of price controls. As a result, they enacted price controls in an environment ready made for their enforcement.)

Black market activity entails the commission of further crimes. Under de facto socialism, the production and sale of goods in the black market entails the defiance of the government's regulations concerning production and distribution, as well as the defiance of its price controls. For example, the goods themselves that are sold in the black market are intended by the government to be distributed in accordance with its plan, and not in the black market. The factors of production used to produce those goods are likewise intended by the government to be used in accordance with its plan, and not for the purpose of supplying the black market.

Under a system of de jure socialism, such as existed in Soviet Russia, in which the legal code of the country openly and explicitly makes the government the owner of the means of production, all black-market activity necessarily entails the misappropriation or theft of state property. For example, the factory workers or managers in Soviet Russia who turned out products that they sold in the black market were considered as stealing the raw materials supplied by the state.

Furthermore, in any type of socialist state, Nazi or Communist, the government's economic plan is part of the supreme law of the land. We all have a good idea of how chaotic the so-called planning process of socialism is. Its further disruption by workers and managers siphoning off materials and supplies to produce for the black market, is something which a socialist state is logically entitled to regard as an act of sabotage of its national economic plan. And sabotage is how the legal code of a socialist state does regard it. Consistent with this fact, black-market activity in a socialist country often carries the death penalty.

Now I think that a fundamental fact that explains the all-round reign of terror found under socialism is the incredible dilemma in which a socialist state places itself in relation to the masses of its citizens. On the one hand, it assumes full responsibility for the individual's economic well-being. Russian or Bolshevik-style socialism openly avows this responsibility — this is the main source of its popular appeal. On the other hand, in all of the ways one can imagine, a socialist state makes an unbelievable botch of the job. It makes the individual's life a nightmare.

Every day of his life, the citizen of a socialist state must spend time in endless waiting lines. For him, the problems Americans experienced in the gasoline shortages of the 1970s are normal; only he does not experience them in relation to gasoline — for he does not own a car and has no hope of ever owning one — but in relation to simple items of clothing, to vegetables, even to bread. Even worse he is frequently forced to work at a job that is not of his choice and which he therefore must certainly hate. (For under shortages, the government comes to decide the allocation of labor just as it does the allocation of the material factors of production.) And he lives in a condition of unbelievable overcrowding, with hardly ever a chance for privacy. (In the face of housing shortages, boarders are assigned to homes; families are compelled to share apartments. And a system of internal passports and visas is adopted to limit the severity of housing shortages in the more desirable areas of the country.) To put it mildly, a person forced to live in such conditions must seethe with resentment and hostility.

Now against whom would it be more logical for the citizens of a socialist state to direct their resentment and hostility than against that very socialist state itself? The same socialist state which has proclaimed its responsibility for their life, has promised them a life of bliss, and which in fact is responsible for giving them a life of hell. Indeed, the leaders of a socialist state live in a further dilemma, in that they daily encourage the people to believe that socialism is a perfect system whose bad results can only be the work of evil men. If that were true, who in reason could those evil men be but the rulers themselves, who have not only made life a hell, but have perverted an allegedly perfect system to do it?

It follows that the rulers of a socialist state must live in terror of the people. By the logic of their actions and their teachings, the boiling, seething resentment of the people should well up and swallow them in an orgy of bloody vengeance. The rulers sense this, even if they do not admit it openly; and thus their major concern is always to keep the lid on the citizenry.

Consequently, it is true but very inadequate merely to say such things as that socialism lacks freedom of the press and freedom of speech. Of course, it lacks these freedoms. If the government owns all the newspapers and publishing houses, if it decides for what purposes newsprint and paper are to be made available, then obviously nothing can be printed which the government does not want printed. If it owns all the meeting halls, no public speech or lecture can be delivered which the government does not want delivered. But socialism goes far beyond the mere lack of freedom of press and speech.

A socialist government totally annihilates these freedoms. It turns the press and every public forum into a vehicle of hysterical propaganda in its own behalf, and it engages in the relentless persecution of everyone who dares to deviate by so much as an inch from its official party line.

The reason for these facts is the socialist rulers' terror of the people. To protect themselves, they must order the propaganda ministry and the secret police to work 'round the clock. The one, to constantly divert the people's attention from the responsibility of socialism, and of the rulers of socialism, for the people's misery. The other, to spirit away and silence anyone who might even remotely suggest the responsibility of socialism or its rulers — to spirit away anyone who begins to show signs of thinking for himself. It is because of the rulers' terror, and their desperate need to find scapegoats for the failures of socialism, that the press of a socialist country is always full of stories about foreign plots and sabotage, and about corruption and mismanagement on the part of subordinate officials, and why, periodically, it is necessary to unmask large-scale domestic plots and to sacrifice major officials and entire factions in giant purges.

It is because of their terror, and their desperate need to crush every breath even of potential opposition, that the rulers of socialism do not dare to allow even purely cultural activities that are not under the control of the state. For if people so much as assemble for an art show or poetry reading that is not controlled by the state, the rulers must fear the dissemination of dangerous ideas. Any unauthorized ideas are dangerous ideas, because they can lead people to begin thinking for themselves and thus to begin thinking about the nature of socialism and its rulers. The rulers must fear the spontaneous assembly of a handful of people in a room, and use the secret police and its apparatus of spies, informers, and terror either to stop such meetings or to make sure that their content is entirely innocuous from the point of view of the state.

Socialism cannot be ruled for very long except by terror. As soon as the terror is relaxed, resentment and hostility logically begin to well up against the rulers. The stage is thus set for a revolution or civil war. In fact, in the absence of terror, or, more correctly, a sufficient degree of terror, socialism would be characterized by an endless series of revolutions and civil wars, as each new group of rulers proved as incapable of making socialism function successfully as its predecessors before it. The inescapable inference to be drawn is that the terror actually experienced in the socialist countries was not simply the work of evil men, such as Stalin, but springs from the nature of the socialist system. Stalin could come to the fore because his unusual willingness and cunning in the use of terror were the specific characteristics most required by a ruler of socialism in order to remain in power. He rose to the top by a process of socialist natural selection: the selection of the worst.

I need to anticipate a possible misunderstanding concerning my thesis that socialism is totalitarian by its nature. This concerns the allegedly socialist countries run by Social Democrats, such as Sweden and the other Scandinavian countries, which are clearly not totalitarian dictatorships.

In such cases, it is necessary to realize that along with these countries not being totalitarian, they are also not socialist. Their governing parties may espouse socialism as their philosophy and their ultimate goal, but socialism is not what they have implemented as their economic system. Their actual economic system is that of a hampered market economy*, as Mises termed it. While more hampered than our own in important respects, their economic system is essentially similar to our own, in that the characteristic driving force of production and economic activity is not government decree but the initiative of private owners motivated by the prospect of private profit.

The reason that Social Democrats do not establish socialism when they come to power, is that they are unwilling to do what would be required. The establishment of socialism as an economic system requires a massive act of theft — the means of production must be seized from their owners and turned over to the state. Such seizure is virtually certain to provoke substantial resistance on the part of the owners, resistance which can be overcome only by use of massive force.

The Communists were and are willing to apply such force, as evidenced in Soviet Russia. Their character is that of armed robbers prepared to commit murder if that is what is necessary to carry out their robbery. The character of the Social Democrats in contrast is more like that of pickpockets, who may talk of pulling the big job someday, but who in fact are unwilling to do the killing that would be required, and so give up at the slightest sign of serious resistance.

As for the Nazis, they generally did not have to kill in order to seize the property of Germans other than Jews. This was because, as we have seen, they established socialism by stealth, through price controls, which served to maintain the outward guise and appearance of private ownership. The private owners were thus deprived of their property without knowing it and thus felt no need to defend it by force.

I think I have shown that socialism — actual socialism — is totalitarian by its very nature.


* - Prior to the 1990's it was hampered to the extent that the economy of Sweden nearly collapsed. The Swedes had to back off and substantially reduced tax rates and the government cut of the economy. Only the North Sea gas has kept Norway from doing the same. - jjk308
 

·
Silver Bullet member
Joined
·
36,239 Posts
You didn't even read the link I posted, did you?

Here, I'll post it again.

http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/histn/histn015.pdf
That article is useless because it ignores Hitler's practical totalitarian politics of socialism in favor of chattering on about the philosophical foundations of German racist nationalism. It's far less pertinent than discussing Locke's Two Treatises of Government in an argument about Obama's Healthcare "Louisiana Purchase".

Meanwhile here's more proof, mauserboy style, that Hitler was a Socialist:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGdbHW9Nlds&feature=player_embedded
 

·
Silver Bullet member
Joined
·
36,239 Posts
He feels a swell of interest every time its on,
Please, someone, anyone, tell mauserboy to keep his eyes shut whenever that picture of Obama swimming reappears!
The Boy is bad enough as a Libertarian neo-Nazi. I shudder to think of the result if he becomes a thrill running down his leg Obamamaniac!
 

·
Silver Bullet member
Joined
·
36,239 Posts
Here's a very straightforward and unbiased account of the whole Schine, Cohn, McCarthy, Army mess. It ended with Roy Cohn's bizarre behavior wrecking McCarthy's career. I'd guess that McCarthy either defended Cohn's actions because he was totally dependent on Cohn to run his operation or because he was so arrogant he thought he could get away with anything. That's not an unusual condition for politicians. Just watch a rerun of Obama at the Healthcare Summit.

In essence the serious anti-communists in the Senate had gotten sick and tired of his bullying and unsupported attention seeking antics. McCarthy's bull in the china shop tactics had backfired and worst of all his career and downfall gave ammunition to those leftists comfortable with ignoring the communist threat.


http://www.anb.org/articles/07/07-00719.html
American national Biography Online.

Schine, G. David (11 Sept. 1927-19 June 1996), government official and businessman, was born Gerard David Schine, the son of J. Myer Morris Schine, millionaire owner of radio stations, movie theaters, and hotels, and Hildegarde Feldman Schine. After graduating from Harvard in 1949, Schine was appointed by his father to be president of his own company, Schine Hotels Inc.

In 1952 he published an error-filled pamphlet, Definition of Communism, and had it placed in all of his company's hotel rooms. Despite its inaccuracies, the pamphlet caught the notice of anti-Communists. Late in 1952 Schine was introduced to U.S. Justice Department attorney Roy Cohn, chief counsel for Senator Joseph McCarthy's Senate Committee on Government Operations, which tenaciously pursued any sign of Communist infiltration in the foreign service and the military. The two became friends, and Cohn soon persuaded McCarthy to hire Schine in February 1953 as the committee's "chief consultant," an unpaid position McCarthy created "to please Cohn" (Reeves, Life and Times of Joe McCarthy).

Schine assisted Cohn in an investigation of the Voice of America (VOA) in February and March, planning strategy and subpoenaing VOA employees. Those hearings brought to light the presence of "numerous Communist and pro-Communist publications" in European State Department libraries. McCarthy quickly sent Cohn and Schine abroad to uncover inefficiency and "subversives" within the International Information Administration (IIA). After arriving in Paris on 4 April, they traveled to nine European cities in eighteen days. The trip made both men and the anti-Communist cause they served objects of ridicule (as "junketeering gumshoes") and of fear (they caused hundreds to lose their jobs and inspired "book-burnings"). Although they exaggerated what they achieved and used Draconian methods, there was evidence of actual mismanagement and misuse of funds in both the VOA and the IIA.

Soon after they returned from Europe, other issues emerged that proved far more important to the legacy of McCarthyism. In his 17 July 1953 syndicated column, Drew Pearson reported on unpatriotic draft avoidance among McCarthy's staff. He obtained Schine's draft records and uncovered "questionable deferments." With Pearson applying pressure, the California draft board reevaluated Schine's case and eventually drafted him. Schine arrived at Fort Dix, New Jersey, on 10 November 1953. After failing to get his friend an officer's commission, an enraged Cohn began alternately cajoling and harassing U.S. Army officials on Schine's behalf.

At the time, Senator McCarthy was involved in an investigation of the army, partially justified by legitimate instances of "lax security" and officers suspected of Communist sympathies. William Klingaman has suggested that during the first two months of McCarthy's fishing expedition the army cooperated with him. When the Senator pressed to see confidential files, however, and verbally attacked the commander of Fort Monmouth, General Ralph W. Zwicker, "the campaign . . . to obtain special considerations for Schine provided Army officials with a weapon" to fight back.

On 16 March 1954, the Senate Committee on Government Operations created a Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations under Senator Karl Mundt of South Dakota to review the charge that McCarthy was trying "to punish the U.S. Army for drafting his former aide." The televised hearings ran from 22 April to 17 June, with thirty-six days of testimony seen by millions. Though McCarthy himself seemed to be only minimally involved in obtaining special treatment for Schine (he told Secretary of the Army Robert Stevens there was "nothing indispensable about [Schine]"), he was held responsible for Cohn's rabid crusade. Witnesses testified that Schine had been "released from drills to accept phone calls and . . . received passes every weekend and holiday." Stevens testified that he did give Schine privileges because he believed Cohn was "threatening" him. McCarthy, with Cohn whispering in his ear, denied any undue pressure and relentlessly badgered witnesses, prompting Army lawyer Joseph N. Welch to famously criticize the senator: "Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?" Though the hearings came to no definite conclusion, there was enough evidence for the Senate to vote to censure McCarthy on 2 December 1954.

Examinations of Cohn and Schine's relationship have attempted to explain Cohn's obsessive behavior over Schine's army service by pointing to rumors of their homosexuality. Though gay, Cohn denied any sexual relations with Schine. It seems most likely that, if there was an erotic attraction, it was only on Cohn's side. Others found the relationship purely mercenary: "Schine paid Cohn's expenses" (Ewald, Who Killed Joe McCarthy?). Whatever the truth, the fact remains that Cohn had a strong enough attachment to Schine to risk the destruction of McCarthy's anti-Communist movement for him.

Schine remained in the army until his discharge in 1955. In 1957 he married Hillevi Rombin; they had six children. Schine became a successful businessman, serving in his father's empire as a hotel president. He was also involved in the entertainment industry, most notably as executive producer of the film The French Connection (1971), winner of the Academy Award for best picture. In 1977 Schine and Cohn sued Universal Studios and NBC for defamation in a television movie about McCarthy, Tailgunner Joe, but an appellate court ruled they had no case. Schine died on his way to inspect a theater for a stage production of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde when the single-engine plane piloted by his son Berndt crashed shortly after takeoff from Burbank, California. His wife and son were also killed.

An eager participant in McCarthy's anti-Communist witch hunt, Schine nevertheless found his niche in history by unwittingly helping to bring about its downfall.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bibliography

Helpful government records include State Department Information Program--Information Centers (1954); Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952-1954, vol. 1, part 2: General Economic and Political Matters; and Communist Infiltration in the Army (1954). See also books on McCarthy: Fred J. Cook, The Nightmare Decade: The Life and Times of Senator Joe McCarthy (1971); William B. Ewald, Jr., Who Killed Joe McCarthy? (1984); Arthur Herman, Joseph McCarthy: Reexamining the Life and Legacy of America's Most Hated Senator (2000); William K. Klingaman, Encyclopedia of the McCarthy Era (1996); David M. Oshinsky, A Conspiracy So Immense: The World of Joe McCarthy (1983); Thomas C. Reeves, The Life and Times of Joe McCarthy (1982); Richard H. Rovere, Senator Joe McCarthy (1959). For Cohn and Schine's relationship, see Nicholas von Hoffman, Citizen Cohn (1988), and Tony Kushner's play "G. David Schine in Hell" in Death and Taxes: Hydriotaphia and Other Plays (2000). The Cohn-Schine overseas trip and Army-McCarthy hearings were covered in most major newspapers. An obituary is in the New York Times, 21 June 1996.




Kristen Williams
 

·
Silver Bullet member
Joined
·
36,239 Posts
Actually, yes, the Venona files which were de-classified in 1995 did vindicate him.

Have you studied these files?
Yes. And obviously McCarthy knew nothing of them. None of the subjects of his supposed investigations were new revelations as the FBI had been leading a major anti-Soviet espionage operation since before the end of WWII and had already exposed the major spy rings well before McCarthy got on the anti-communist bandwagon. Most of the open prosecutions were linked to agents defections from the GRU but its obvious there were other sources that weren't revealed at the time.
The identified members of the Venona messages were prosecuted or barred from government employment as soon as the transmissions had been decoded, assuming that the FBI could develop evidence completely seperate from the Venona decodes. The FBI made exceptions for those cases where a trial or other action would have revealed the code breaking power of the Venona operation. I do know of several who stayed in government employment but suddenly found their careers sidetracked to trivial jobs, and I assume they were kept under close watch. IMHO the earliest electronic computers run by the precursor of the NSA were employed in the code breaking. I believe there's a lot of cover-ups and omissions in the story of decoding the Venona intercepts, things that were left out of the books on Venona and the official publications at: http://www.fbi.gov/libref/historic/history/foxpaper.htm

The reason has become not so much to keep the methodology away from the Soviets and later Russions, but because many less developed nations used the same coding methods as the WWII USSR until quite recently and nobody wants to reveal how we've broken them.

Unlike our current moronic Attorney General the US government of that time preferred to put the safety of the USA and the secrecy of its intelligence sources before a few more prosecutions.

I suggest you read several of the excellent works on Venona. They really stomp on the Liberal assertions about all anti-communism, and a cursory study of the timelines will show you what a cynical opportunist McCarthy was. The REAL anti-communists, like HUAC and the FBI, did all the heavy lifting while McCarthy tried to take all the credit, even if it involved fabrications and wrecking the lives of the innocent.
 

·
Silver Bullet member
Joined
·
36,239 Posts
Survey says, "WRONG." The FBI approached McCarthy in the first place.
All of those who claim that Hoover and Sen. McCarthy were friends or that Hoover fed him information are basing it on sources in the book by Curt Gentry, "J. Edgar Hoover: The Man and His Secrets". New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1991.

This is the book that claims that Hoover was a homosexual transvestite, along with a huge dump of other idiotic assertions.

In fact McCarthy's source of FBI information was an investigator he hired, former FBI agent Don Surine. Surine had been fired by Hoover, personally, but still had contacts in FBI field offices who surreptitiously passed him information. There is no record whatsoever of any FBI contacts with McCarthy beyond normal courtesy briefings prior to McCarthy's hiring of Surine

Surine may have been fired by Hoover because of his own publicity grabbing anti-communism. Hoover expected his agents to stay in the background and do exactly as they were told. Running the sophisticated counter-espionage and participating in the code breaking Venona operations were the exact opposite of the loose cannon approach of McCarthy, Cohn and Surine. Hoover was always extremely careful of the information and publicity he released, and jealous of his position. He had no problems with cooperating with the careful HUAC investigations but Mccarthy's lunacy was another story entirely and those agents who slipped files to Surine were risking their careers.
 

·
Silver Bullet member
Joined
·
36,239 Posts
I suggest you ignore anything but the specific details in Theoharis and Cox that are corroborated by documentation, not just quotes, long after the fact, from possibly biased and inventive witnesses. Their book is one big scholarly smear of J. Edgar Hoover and they are purporting a collaboration with Sen. McCarthy as part of that smear.

In fact the Venona Intercepts and the actions of the US counterintelligence community point directly to Hoover's involvment in keeping the identity of many of the suspected agents in Venona secret, exactly counter to McCarthy's publicity seeking "investigations". Given a choice between prosecuting a few lapsed Soviet agents and running a long term investigation that might reveal new active one, Hoover, a consummate professional, took the long view, choosing surveillance over exposure.

Given the problems any security agency would have with McCarthy's grandstanding I wouldn't be surprised if Hoover fed information to the senators running the McCarthy censure effort.
 

·
Silver Bullet member
Joined
·
36,239 Posts
I'm bored with this. And now for something different but not completely.

How about that illegal war King George II waged against Spain in 1739 just because Captain Robert Jenkins had his ear cut off by the Spanish Coast Guard Julio León Fandiño? How do we know that was really Jenkin's ear in that pickle jar? Maybe he cut himself shaving!
King George II lied and people died!



Prime Minister Robert Walpole hath a fit of the vapors whenst confronted with the Spanish-sliced ear of Capt. Jenkins
 
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top