-Caveat Lector-
1-3-1999, you wrote:
>
> Nazi's, Socialists, Communists - One and the same
> Center for the American Founding January 20, 1998 Balint Vazsonyi
> ------------
>
> TAKING COMMUNISM SERIOUSLY By Balint Vazsonyi
> [First published January 20, 1998 in The Washington Times]
>
> The publication in France of "The Black Book of Communism"
> (reviewed in the Washington Times by Ben and Daniel Wattenberg,
> January 8) is setting off shock waves in French political circles.
> But the book's real impact could be in America. At long last,
> we will have the tools to confront "Communism — The Idea."
from: http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a66914.htm
" http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a63342.htm
Topic: Communist Conspiracy
Teflon Communism
-----------------------
The Wall Street Journal
January 16, 1998 By ANNE APPLEBAUM
It began in November, became passionate in December, and trickled
out again in January. While it lasted, the debate in Paris about
the crimes of communism was as fierce as only a French intellectual
debate can be: there were headlines in Le Monde, questions in
parliament, and no doubt more than one furious discussion on the
Left Bank as well. But now the issues have faded away once again,
as they always do. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991,
this is a debate that has never quite got off the ground -- and it
is worth asking why.
This time, the argument was set off by a book put together by a
collection of respected analysts and historians: Le Livre Noir du
Communism (The Black Book of Communism). One wouldn't expect that
over 800 pages of history, photographs and statistics would stir
political fury and journalistic interest, but this tome was
different. While there are histories of communism's toll in the
Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, and in China and Cambodia, this is
reportedly the first time that anyone has made a comprehensive
study, complete with an estimated body count of 85 to 100 million.
Also unusual, the introduction, written by Stephane Courtois of the
National Center for Scientific Research in Paris, argues that these
deaths deserve the appellation "crimes against humanity" -- the
term most closely associated with Nazi genocide.
Why the Controversy?
Those numbers and that phrase triggered the reactions that took
Paris by surprise. Intellectuals, including some of the Black
Book's co-authors, objected to the implied comparison of Nazism
to communism. Some politicians began to question the presence
of the French Communist party in the governing coalition. One
parliamentary deputy demanded to know how Prime Minister Lionel
Jospin intended to "recognize the crimes of communism" and to
"establish the responsibility" of those -- including those in
France -- who supported the criminals. Mr. Jospin's response was
that he was "proud" of the presence of Communists in his government
and shocked by the comparison of communism to Nazism; a group of
right-wing deputies marched out of parliament as a result.
What seems extraordinary, in retrospect, is not that the French
worked themselves up into a lather over a few numbers quoted in
a book, but that any aspect of this subject should still be
controversial anywhere at all. At the end of the 20th century,
it is no longer possible to say of Marxism, as many once did, that
"the ideas were right, but the people failed." Whether you think
the death toll comes to 100 million or a mere 10 million, whether
you count man-made famines as well as mass terror, whether you
include Latin American insurgencies or stick simply to Eastern
Europe -- in 1998 there really should be no doubt in anybody's mind
that the ideas behind Communist regimes were wrong too.
In order to understand this, there is no need to compare Communist
crimes to Nazi crimes. It is pointless to argue over which
philosophy, communism or fascism, is "worse": both are evil,
both should be condemned, those who perpetrated either should be
punished, those who sympathized with either should be ashamed.
Of course, the degree of punishment has not been the same. As
Mr. Courtois points out in the introduction, there has been no
Nuremberg for criminals who perpetrated terror and murder under
Communist regimes. In most of Central and Eastern Europe,
Stalinist prosecutors, jailers and torturers are living out a
peaceful retirement on government pensions. In Russia, the crimes
of the past are rarely discussed in public. In China, the camps
and torture continue, if not at the same intensity.
While deplorable, and in some cases dangerous to the stability of
fragile new democracies, this absence of punishment in the former
Communist world can be explained. The transformation of Communist
regimes happened gradually; often former Communists remained in
power; newly democratic countries found it too difficult to deal
with the past when facing immediate economic and political
challenges.
Much harder to explain is the absence of shame on the part of the
Western sympathizers. While it is impossible to imagine any
political party with the word "Nazi" in its name operating
successfully anywhere in Europe, Communist and former Communist
parties continue to exist and thrive. The word "collaborator" is
rarely applied to them, although that is of course what they were.
The French Communist party, which remains unembarrassed by its
name, was very late to acknowledge the crimes of Stalinism. Lucio
Lombardo Radice, a leading Italian "Euro-Communist," famously
admitted in 1977 that in the case of a Soviet invasion of Western
Europe, he would want Italy to take the side of the Soviet Union
against NATO.
Nor has any stigma been attached to Marxism itself, which continues
to attract adherents, as it did during the time of purges and
terror in the Soviet Union. As the philosopher Tzvetan Todorov
writes in "Facing the Extreme," his recent book on the moral
questions posed by concentration camps, Jean-Paul Sartre was among
many left-wing French intellectuals who knew about the state crimes
of the Soviet Union while they were happening, but refused to
discuss them because he "didn't wish to demoralise Billancourt,
the working-class suburb of Paris." His contemporary equivalents
are no different. Marx's Communist Manifesto sold 60,000 copies
in Britain last year, and is still second to the Bible as the
best-selling book ever. Marxist philosophy survives in many
Western universities, even as it is scorned in Eastern Europe.
This attachment to a philosophy that has been responsible for
decades of terror is explained in part by the outcome of World War
II: Many in the West still seem unaware that we defeated one
murderous regime with the help of another. But, even more
alarming, the ideas themselves continue to appeal. The ideal of
equality, which lies at the heart of Marxism, also lies at the
heart of the social democratic philosophy that spawned the modern
welfare states of Europe and America. Even some British Tories and
German Christian Democrats found it difficult to condemn Marxist
regimes in the past because of the egalitarian ideals they
espoused. History has still not taught us, in other words, that
the forced imposition of equality -- as opposed to the legal
creation of equality of opportunity -- can only be achieved through
coercion, and at the expense of economic and political freedom.
Blame Human Nature?
Nor, 80 years after the bloody, destructive and nevertheless still
romanticized Russian Revolution, has history taught us to
distinguish between truth and propaganda. The Nazis committed acts
of terror and were open about it -- more or less -- which is why
the Nazis are universally condemned. Communists committed acts
of terror in the name of a greater good, which is why such a
substantial minority of people are offended by a book which
condemns Marxist regimes. Perhaps, in fact, the continued
tolerance of Communist parties and Marxist philosophy in the West
is rooted in human nature, in our capacity for self-deception, in
our dreams of a society without conflicts and without poverty, in
our refusal to see that all of the quick roads to such a society
lead to totalitarianism.
But whatever the reasons, our inability to condemn left- wing acts
of terror as forcefully as right-wing acts of terror does leave
open a continued source of moral confusion in the West -- one which
will no doubt continue to erupt in uneasy and unresolved public
debate such as the one which has just played itself out in Paris.
Until Marxism itself is widely seen as an abhorrent philosophy,
it will remain.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Applebaum, a columnist for the Sunday Telegraph, is writing
a book about the Soviet gulag system.
Copyright © 1998 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Why did I keep expecting the name "Strobe Talbot" to crop up in
this article?
Posted by: Rodger Schultz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) *
01/12/98 01:56:03 PST
-------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Rodger Schultz
"Gus Hall, General Secretary of the Communist Party, USA, told
Americans what to expect when the communists take over. Speaking
at the funeral of Eugene Dennis in February 1961, Hall said:
I dream of the hour when the last Congressman is strangled to
death on the guts of the last preacher -- and since the
Christians love to sing about the blood, why not give them a
little of it."
I imagine that Communist apologists and adherents in the U.S.
merely smiled at such evidence of bloodthirsty inclinations.
From: Michael Gallutia () *
01/12/98 13:16:23 PST
-------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Michael Gallutia
I have to have the source for that -- it's too, too good. Old
Commie Gus -- sponsor of FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Media) --
was on C-Span a few weeks ago. The uninitiated would descern
absolutely no difference if his rhetoric and that of about any
Democrat you care to name. I'm not making that up.
From: Rodger Schultz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) *
01/12/98 13:54:30 PST
-------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Rodger Schultz
Your wish is my command. Extracted from "None Dare Call It
Treason", p. 20, John A. Stormer, Liberty Bell Press, 1964.
Reported in the "St. Louis Globe Democrat" on May 12, 1963.
Gus's henchman (from FAIR) appeared on a Fox News show recently,
and he was relentlessly critical of Christopher Ruddy. His tone,
demeanor, and lack of substance reminded me of the most rabid
Communists to have ever strode over the corpses of their citizenry.
From: Michael Gallutia () *
01/12/98 14:08:33 PST
-------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Michael Gallutia
Thanks for the great article. I have noticed over last few years
how pro-communism has changed defense startegy. Used to be
McCarthy-ism was charged with destroying innocents. Now, they
proudly profess they were communists, but McCarthy had no right to
attack them, since American communists believed only in social
justice, etc.
Latest example, last week on "Diane Ream [spelling] Show," radio
WAMU, Diane interviewed a female professor from Yeshiva University
(NYC) who wrote a book on the anti-communist movement of the 40's
& 50's. She mentioned victims, all of whom she stated were
communists: the 3000 Longshoremen; her grade school teacher; other
unions that were controlled by commies. Every caller-in but one
also lamented the anti-communist treatment their friends/relatives
received. Oh, yes, they also said these same people were commies.
Diane commended the author. It has gotten to the point where
people are proud to admit they were communists. It's amazing.
From: Neptune () *
06/18/98 01:19:27 EDT
-------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Michael Gallutia
"...85 to 100 million killed."
Boy, those commies make the Nazis look like under-acheivers.
From: Deb () *
08/17/98 01:01:03 EDT
-------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Deb
The Nazis were underachievers Deb.
Stalin: 20-30 million dead.
Mao: 15-20 million dead.
Pol Pot: 5 million dead and wounded.
Rawanda: 2 million dead and wounded.(est)
Armenia: 1 to 1.5 million dead.
All of these murdered souls rest on one altar.
The altar of government.
And you slander those of us who are frightened of governments.
Regards, L
From: Lurker () *
08/17/98 01:20:10 EDT
-------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Deb
But why is there so little publicity about these huge numbers.
We hear a lot about the Nazi crimes, but very little about the
Communist crimes.
Wonder how many the "Third Way" plan to kill ?
From: gatex (emailname) *
08/17/98 01:22:56 EDT
-------------------------------------------------------------------
To: gatex
The answer, Who controls the liberal press?
From: doc ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) *
08/17/98 01:28:55 EDT
-------------------------------------------------------------------
To: doc
Who, Yes, who? 99.9% of the country detest Nazism.(KKK) But, how
many detest communism(Socialism)? How many people do you would
face certain death in a violent turnover? Teachers, public
officals, clergy, businessmen)or women)?
From: JayTee (emailname) *
08/17/98 01:43:51 EDT
-------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Neptune
Once it is understood that the Marxist "dialectic" or way of
thinking is circular and therefore impervious to intrusion by fact,
there is no more confusion about why adherents to communism show no
shame, never bow to reason and hardly scruple at the slaughter of
millions of innocents. Whatever contradicts their dogma is crushed
and the stunned silence following their campaigns of mass terror
and genocide are proclaimed as general assent to their
"philosophy." This is how they preserve the grotesque fantasy
dreamed up by Karl Marx. Try arguing with one some time and
you'll see first hand what I mean.
From: Bonaparte () *
08/17/98 02:26:13 EDT
-------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Rodger Schultz
The only assertion in the article which I find to be inaccurate is
the false dichotomy between Left and Right. This author, who
purports to be an expert, makes the common mistake of placing
fascism on the Right of the political spectrum, and communism on
the Left. Fascism always has been, and always will be on the Left
since the only material difference between it and communism is the
fact that private property is allowed to exist, but it is
completely and thoroughly controlled by the central government
(which is dictatorial in nature).
This false dichotomy allows portions of the ruling, political class
to confuse the public by equating conservative, Libertarian, and
strict constitutionalist philosophies with right wing extremism
(aka, fascism) while their agendas continually move our country
toward the Left (i.e., communism and fascism).
From: Michael Gallutia ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) *
08/17/98 08:48:23 EDT
-------------------------------------------------------------------
[www.FreeRepublic.com]
.
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
