The genie is out of the bottle

[Guest eureka]

To nme just a few organizations involved in the protests:

Pastors for Peace;

Theatre artists for Peace;

Vietnam War Veterans Association.

I have seen reports of as many as 275 organizations involved in the protests. That is just for America. The rest of the world has no connection with your scapegoat.

[Hugo]

Check "Vote no War" as one organization amongst many. Do you really believe those fanatical apologists?

I see no dispute of my allegation that, as of February 2003, all anti-war protests in the US were organised by Communist groups.

What has basically happened is that you have been challenged with facts that contradict your notions, but rather than accomodate them and seek any of your own you prefer to ignore them because they shake your confidence in your preconceived world view. It is very intellectually dishonest, and I would urge you to consider the other point of view and acquaint yourself with facts before making rash and prejudiced judgements.

For Germany, do you not see the word "totalitarian" in your own quotes? Germany was a totalitarian state born of the Capitalist Right.

Nazi Germany (stop saying Germany, it makes a mockery of the whole discussion) was born of the left, as is plain in pre-1933 Nazi economic theory as put forward by Feder and others. After the Nazis came to power, the evidence is indisputable: they were running a dictatorial command economy. Their beef with the USSR was nothing to do with economics, because they were identical, but it was due to social ideas and racial prejudice.

Notice that new corporations with assets above 2 million could be formed.

You have not thought about that. $2m in 1936 is worth $26.5m in 2004. That is to start any business. It's a quite staggering sum of capital. Because in Nazi Germany all banks and the monetary system were firmly in state control, it meant that the only the state could start a new business or allow one to be started. It is another example of profoundly anticapitalist economic totalitarianism.

[Guest eureka]

I have spent most of the day looking for "Reds" under my bed and in the basement. Thank goodness I did not find any for you had me really worried that the "silent majority" is actually a secret Communist force.

Can you not see the absurdity of your claim. 275 organizations across America are all Communist Fronts - you can look it up for yourself as I am not going to spend precious time finding Web sites to refute such nonsense. It has been estimated that 85% of the world's population from 80% of its nations opposed the war. That was then: it would be more now.

Polls in the USA showed that a substantial majority of the people there opposed the war from the beginning. Where a majority in favour came in was when the questions included support of the President.

Germany was Germany, not Nazi Germany. And, it was a right wing takeover by the Nazis. Hitler's early targets were Communists and Socialists AND Unionists.

I really did not expect to find on this sorum with all the intelligence that is apparent, any who would try the old Hitler was a Socialist theme. That was destroyed long ago and none but a few revisionists who have no academic credibility now attempt it.

You grossly exaggerate the extent of state management of business in Germany and, by your own admission, large enterprises were allowed to start up - in addition to those that still operated. That is anti-Capitalist!

[Hugo]

Can you not see the absurdity of your claim.

You have not refuted it.

It has been estimated that 85% of the world's population from 80% of its nations opposed the war.

And, it turns out, extremist Marxist groups still have some influence.

Germany was Germany, not Nazi Germany.

Then what Germany are you referring to? Hohenzollern? Pre-unification?

You grossly exaggerate the extent of state management of business in Germany

You dispute William L. Shirer? Alright, then let's see your evidence and your sources. Oh, sorry, I forgot it was you. Of course, you have none.

[KrustyKidd]

Can you not see the absurdity of your claim. 275 organizations across America are all Communist Fronts

Not absurd, go to the organizations website, look up the board of directors or chairpersons. Then look up the organization they represent or come from, you repeat that process and in the tree is a socialist organization most of the time.

It's hilarious, they all hate America anyways as it is the opposite of everything they believe in. You know, success, democracy, lack of government control and social programs for those who can do it for themselves, this is just a regular bandwagon for these guys. Success in Iraq is just as bad for them as it is for former Regime members.

Now I'm not going to tell you they are Communist fronts, I will however make the observation that Socialists all start off with great aspirations but it quite often ends up bad. Funny how all these impovershed political activists in old Europe turned out to be more bourgeois than Marie Antoinette when they held office. What power does to some people. Before power, they loved intellectuals and hated the rich. After power, they still hated the rich and killed them, killed the intelectuals and then killed their accomlices who used to be the poor. of course, these guys want to do it right this time, first they have to get some crdibility but that shouldn't be too hard as everybody knows, Socialism works great on paper. First, you need to discredit everything that works fairly well like capitalism and especially America, then you just need total control like Pol Pot to get the programe to work right.

[Hugo]

Hitler's early targets were Communists and Socialists AND Unionists.

I almost forgot this one. Just because Hitler fought against other socialists does not mean he was not one, any more than it would in the fighting between Bolsheviks and Mensheviks or between Cambodia and Vietnam.

I really did not expect to find on this sorum with all the intelligence that is apparent, any who would try the old Hitler was a Socialist theme. That was destroyed long ago and none but a few revisionists who have no academic credibility now attempt it.

This is a logical fallacy called "begging the question." You are trying to get us to accept your conclusion as part of your argument towards your conclusion.

[Cartman]

I see no dispute of my allegation that, as of February 2003, all anti-war protests in the US were organised by Communist groups.

Hugo, let me get this straight because I keep reading posts in this thread and I cannot believe what I am interpreting. Are you saying that you believe negative reactions to the war in Iraq were inspired by a worldwide communist plot (originally from Moscow) and then passively accepted by the majority? If I am in error, please accept my apologies in advance.

[Hugo]

Are you saying that you believe negative reactions to the war in Iraq were inspired by a worldwide communist plot (originally from Moscow) and then passively accepted by the majority?

No. I am saying that Marxist-Leninist groups still have enough influence to organise mass rallies even over a decade after the end of Soviet Communism. I did not mean to say that all such rallies, even as of February 2003, were organised by Communists, that was an error.

I am not saying that the anti-war movement is inspired by Marxists. The Marxists simply latched on to them as an excuse to stick the knife into their enemies, to whit America and capitalism, and garner some publicity. The Castro apologist who organised one rally was hailed by the New York Times as "one of the grandes dames of the country’s progressive movement" on February 4th, 2003.

Nor am I saying that these plots come from Moscow. What I am getting at is that until the USSR lost the Cold War and collapsed, virtually all the world's Marxist-Leninist parties received funding and direction from Moscow. This is why McCarthy pursued Communists with such vigour, because membership in the Communist Party was sedition and treason as the stated goal of the American Communist Party was to subvert and destroy the US Constitution and US Government and to replace it with a dictatorship that would, by inference, be a Moscow satellite.

[Guest eureka]

Surely you are not now apologizing for McCarthy! That is not why McCarthy did anything at all. He did it because he saw the persecution of any he could pretend were linked to the source of a collective paranoia as a passage to his own glory and advancement.

McCarthy was a sick, sick, parody of a human being, and, was himself a tool of brighter ambitions. He merely marahalled feeble minds - Reagan comes to mind - to the cause of not stamping out sedition but stamping out progressive intellects.

[Hugo]

McCarthy was a sick, sick, parody of a human being

McCarthy saw Communism as a threat to his country and his way of life. This is why he attacked it. If more people had thought like him, then somewhere between 50,000,000 and 300,000,000 people would be alive today, people murdered by Communists.

[Big Blue Machine]

Let people belong to whatever political party

[Guest eureka]

Try watching "Citizen Cohn" for some insight into McCarthy if you are not into discovering the truth from history.

McCarthyism exacerbated the Cold War and cost lives as well as doing great harm to America: harm from which it has still not recovered.

[Hugo]

McCarthyism... cost lives

Whose lives?

McCarthyism [did] great harm to America

What harm?

[The Terrible Sweal]

The choice of Margaret Thatcher as Tory leader in 1975,  then her election in 1979 followed by Ronald Reagan's election in 1980 were all indicators of a shift to the "right".  The popular destruction of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 were also indicators.  I think Vaclav Havel said that the only remaining Leftists are now teaching in western universities.

Tony Blair, Felipe Gonzalez and Bill Clinton are all examples of the left reforming.  Even Francois Mitterand was pragmatic and comfortable with cohabitation.  Jacques Chirac, by some standards, is now "Left".  And what was Deng Hsiaoping's famous comment on the colour of cats?

Oh come on!

You can't seriously analyze 'the left' if you're sweeping in the defeat of communism with a resurgence in the likes of Bill Clinton and Tony Blair!

Precisely my point, eureka. You don't know what money is. (It's only paper! How does mere paper have power?)

What do you think money is, and how is that inconsistent with the concept of power?

[August1991]

I think Hugo is asking you to think outside of the box, eureka.

Try watching "Citizen Cohn" for some insight into McCarthy if you are not into discovering the truth from history.

That was a good film, but I preferred a documentary on the Army vs. McCarthy hearings. What you are saying, eureka, may be true in the US context but it is not true in the broader international context.

McCarthyism exacerbated the Cold War and cost lives as well as doing great harm to America: harm from which it has still not recovered.

I think this is a debateable point. And the debate is even relevant today.

The Cold War represented a significant threat to the way we normally live. The past century was arguably a battleground between Bismarck and Lincoln; that is, it was a violent dispute between top-down authority and bottom-up freedom.

As to McCarthy's minor role in this, I would say that a mindless witchhunt is counterproductive but an intelligent investigation is worthy. The Americans face a similar problem now.

Incidentally, recent evidence backs Chambers' and Nixon's accusations against Alger Hiss.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Hitler's early targets were Communists and Socialists AND Unionists.

I almost forgot this one. Just because Hitler fought against other socialists does not mean he was not one, ...

Hitler was a 'socialist', like Shiang Kai Shek was a 'capitalist'!

[August1991]

Precisely my point, eureka. You don't know what money is. (It's only paper! How does mere paper have power?)

What do you think money is, and how is that inconsistent with the concept of power?

Money is just paper. No one desires paper for itself. People desire money because it can be used to obtain real, tangible things. (Food, clothes, a house). To say "money is power" is to say that people do things to obtain other, real things. Well, that's quite obvious and the first guy who built his own cave didn't need money to understand it. (Note that all of this perfectly voluntary.)

I think eureka's point is rather that large, expensive advertising campaigns can influence people's opinions through brain-washing. I think the common term now is wearing a tin-foil hat.

If it were only so true. Peter Pocklington would have lost the past election to Belinda Stronach. And General Motors would still dominate the North American car market. And the Soviet politburo, with access to very sophisticated advertising techniques, would have everyone in its spell.

Lastly, I bought Harper's and read Lapham's article. (I haven't done that in several years and it seems to me Harper's quality has gone down; must be the Internet.) Well, Lapham is back on the Old Left hobbyhorse of "conspiracy". "There must be some evil force making people think in such a foolish way."

Lapham's article is very American. He does not discuss or mention the rise of the right elsewhere in the world.

[The Terrible Sweal]

If large expensive advertising campaigns (not to mention ownership of entire media organizations) cannot influence opinions, why then would you suppose that so much capital is deployed in attempting it?

[Michael Hardner]

Exactly, Sweal.

If it were only so true. Peter Pocklington would have lost the past election to Belinda Stronach. And General Motors would still dominate the North American car market. And the Soviet politburo, with access to very sophisticated advertising techniques, would have everyone in its spell.

If their opponents had no access to advertising and it's cousin PR then they probably would have won.

North American politics is based on the idea of the individual, but our political campaigns are fought with mass-marketing which is philosophically at odds with the former.

Hence our dilemma.

Steps have already taken to reduce the effect of mass advertising. I think this is a good idea to try out.

Those of you who oppose the Liberals would have to agree right ? I mean, with all the money they spent and with Canadians being such sheep etc. etc. etc.