[lit-ideas] Re: Iran (2), First Front

  • From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 18:27:45 -0800

We wouldn't be engaging in an unprovoked attack in the sense you imagine.
Iran has sponsored a number of attacks against the U.S. The 241 Marines
killed and 100 wounded in Beirut are an example.  Furthermore Iran has
declared war against us.  Furthermore Iran is the major exporter of
terrorist activity at the present time despite our saying that we were going
to wage war against those who were waging war against us.  I've covered this
more extensively in other notes.

 

Marxist ideals are not all bad.  Some of them are pretty good.  The Welfares
State, made popular in Europe, is Liberal Democracy modified by Marxist-type
entitlements. We have accepted this in principle even here in the United
States -- even the Republicans have accepted it.  However, remembering that
America is traditional chary of big government, the Republicans attempt to
accomplish the Marxist entitlements without centralized control.  In other
words, the Republicans have accepted many of the Marxist ideals but quibble
about how to put them into effect.  Allowing individuals to invest their
Social Security in the stock market is an example.  

 

A step closer to strict Marxism would be a centralized guarantee of
Marxist-type entitlements.  An example of this is the French constitution
which guarantees them.  The citizens of France have the right to have a job
their constitution declares.  However, the French haven't been able to
deliver on this right.  The French unemployment rate is higher than in the
U.S.; so despite an ideal of wanting to care for each citizen from the
"cradle to the grave," the French government has garnered bitterness for not
giving the French citizens the entitlements they think they deserve.  

 

In America there wasn't a huge interest in Marxist Socialism before the 30s
if I recall correctly. The "Muck Rakers" of an earlier period described some
of the evils: Upton Sinclair wrote The Brass Check about the news industry
(if memory serves me) and Frank Norris wrote The Octopus about the Railroad
industry.  Someone wrote about the meat packing industry.  John Reed of
Oregon was in Russia during their 1917 revolution and wrote Ten Days that
Shook the World; which has become a Communist classic.  Jack London was
conflicted about his politics, but his The Iron Heel was pure Marxist
propaganda as well as being a terrible novel.  In the 30s an American form
of Communism came into existence as the International Workers of the World
and J. Edgar Hoover made a name for himself by crushing it.  The IWW leader,
Big Bill Haywood, fled the country and ended his days in Russia.  

 

There was a love affair between American intellectuals and Marxist/Communist
ideals.  "From each according to his ability, to each according to his
needs" sounded pretty good. It still does.  Unfortunately it didn't work.
When it became clear that the epitome of Marxist practice, the Soviet Union,
was diverging in an unpleasant direction, many recognized that the practice
fell too short of the ideal and abandoned it.  Whittaker Chambers is an
example of that (which he describes in Witness).  In the days when the
Germans were trying out their new weapons in support of Spanish Fascism, the
Communists organized the Lincoln Brigade and many American intellectuals
joined to fight the good fight.  

 

Though many fell away from Marxism and Communism, not all did.  Even when
Stalin signed a treaty with Hitler, they made excuses and supported him.
And when Hitler reneged on this treaty and invaded the USSR, many of these
intellectuals were in highly placed positions in government and used their
influence to gain support for the Soviet Union. Others in the scientific
community sent them our secret information on how to manufacture atomic
bombs.  Also at this time intellectuals in the press and Hollywood praised
the Soviet Union, ridiculed those who were critical of it, scoffed at the
idea that the spies in government were really there, and thoroughly pulled
the wool over our eyes.  We know in retrospect that the spies were there
because of the Venona Papers (coded messages from the KGB that were decoded)
and being given access to KGB files after the collapse of the USSR.  

 

The Communist propaganda machinery in the U.S. was excellent.  It went to
work to prove that America and not the USSR was the bad guy during the Cold
War.  It became fashionable to hold this view.  The Vietnam War became gold
for these people.  "Anti-War" which meant in Communist terms "anti-America
and pro-Viet Cong" became a tremendously influential viewpoint in the US.
Johnson though very much a Welfare-Socialist-Liberal Democrat was pilloried
and refused a second term because his health had been ruined by the
criticism.  His Secretary of State wrote a mea culpa many years later.
Nixon became paranoid about the criticism and made incriminating statements
on tape spied on the opposition.

 

Many alive today remember those halcyon Anti (Vietnam) War days and without
really investigating the nature of Islamism have made a Marxist leap of
faith and assumed that fighting Islamism is identical to fighting Communism.
The Islamists are just some more Wretched of the Earth as Frantz Fanon wrote
and as Edward Said and John Esposito believed.  Communist ideology doesn't
account for Religious belief except as an impediment, or an opiate, so it
was difficult for them to credit the Islamists claim that they were
intending to revolutionize the world for Allah and not for Marx.  Many are
still having that difficulty.

 

Lawrence

 

-----Original Message-----
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Andy Amago
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 4:49 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Iran (2), First Front

 

Lawrence, can you please supply examples of what Marxist Liberal Democrats

are.  Can you supply some specifics?  I honestly don't know what you're

talking about.  Truly, I'm not being difficult.  

 

Also, I agree with you that Islamists are dangerous people.  But, starting

a war against them will only make them more dangerous and weaken us.  How

did the U.S. act when we were attacked by Japan?  Or when we were attacked

by OBL?  Attacking them will galvanize them, motivate them against us, get

their adrenaline flowing.  Does that not matter to you?  In addition to

which, maybe we'll knock out their plants and maybe we won't.  What we need

to do is become independent of their oil, and we're not doing that at all. 

 

 

 

 

> [Original Message]

> From: Lawrence Helm <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

> To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

> Date: 2/3/2006 3:26:56 PM

> Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Iran (2), First Front

> 

> But I have mentioned that Mike's America is something new.  It wasn't

there

> at the beginning.  Those who respect the beginning are now called

> Conservatives.  Those who honor our roots are the original

> Liberal-Democrats.  Marxism came along later and gave rise to a new way of

> thinking.  Strict Marxism was taken up in the USSR.  A modified form

called

> the Welfare State was taken up in Europe

> 

> Mike's America is either Russian or European, I can't tell which.

> 

> Also, the moral equivalence assertion that you voice is obviously

> anti-American.  It is so by definition.  Marxist radicalism is not

America.

> It is not an America that is passing away because it has never been

America.

> Without doubt we have had and still have a vocal Leftist presence in

> America, but it is only America in the sense that we allow it free speech.

> It isn't America.  

> 

> 

> Lawrence 

> 

 

 

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

To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,

digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. lit-ideas
  3. Archive
  4. 02-2006