Communism is just a boogeyman of the alt right.

Treasured Social Butterfly

Communism is just a boogeyman of the alt right.

Message 61 of 61


Yes indeed there was a stalinist threat. But I also believe Truman, with Democrats and republicans twisted the threat to extreme capitalist purposes. 



parts of the link, but i recomend reading all of it Smiley Happy


In the United States, Communism has become a bad word over the decades. Although public opinion is most likely slightly less polarized than during the years of the Cold War, there is still a quite prevalent fear among conservatives of Socialist authoritarianism.


Pretty good opinion piece laying out Stalinists, Trotskyites, marx, and that great big boogeyman created by capitalism.



The standard conservative line of thought goes something like this:

1) The United States is not a Communist country because Communists, being fundamentally opposed to capitalist domination of the world economy over the long term course of societal evolution, cannot be patriotic Americans.

2) Any and all individuals who share any connection to Communist ideology are, therefore, opposed to the American system, and, thus, seek an abrupt end to the “greatness” that is (and has been since the universe was created by the God of the bible some 6000 years ago) the United States.

3) To preserve all that was good about the “glorious” America of the past, citizens must renew the capitalism of the past and reject any and all philosophies which seek to challenge the status quo.

4) Both Communism and Socialism are the exact same thing, therefore any effort at raising the status of the working classes (which falls more generally under the umbrella of Socialism as this stage comes before Communism in the Marxist paradigm) in the United States amounts to a direct challenge to the American way of life.

There are several criticisms to be leveled at this type of thinking:

1) Socialism and Communism, although similar, are by no means the same thing.

2) The ways in which Communism is portrayed by American conservatives represent a gross misrepresentation of the key differences between Communism in theory and Communism in practice.

3) Although some liberals do, indeed, embrace Socialist (and even Communist) thought, the majority still exist within the established American system and, therefore, would receive no immediate benefit from the destruction of said system.

4) Even if, hypothetically, all Democrats were hardcore Communists, there is a clear-cut limit to the amount of political change that can be forced onto a system within any finite period of time, therefore one can conclude that this fact would, indeed, amount to a near irrelevancy.

5) Historically, especially during the Cold War, Democrats like John F. Kennedy represented some of the harshest critics of Communism as it existed in the Soviet Union and other places around the world, because of this one can conclude that criticism of Communism stems much less from ideology in itself, but from geopolitical struggle............


Communist thought spans a huge area of ideological framework. In many ways the ideas of Socialism factor in quite well to this philosophy. When Karl Marx formulated his ideas on “class struggle” he sought to instigate a process of “continual revolution,” wherein the working classes would eventually take control of the system which they compose.


{Culture change anyone? progress? or MAGA?}


The “higher purpose” of ideology, therefore,  consists in the organization of societies. A related example would be the rise of Nazism in Germany in the years following the First World War (1914-1918). This movement sought to exemplify the propagandized virtue of “German-ness.”

In much the same way “American-ness” has been propagandized by those within the establishment who seek as their goal the exploitation of the populace. This idea has then been used by propagandists in the past to brand any and all individuals opposed to the statist paradigm as enemies of the state system.


Many of the political changes implemented during and after the Russian revolution were extremely beneficial to huge sectors of the populace. It is most definitely true, however, that the system in place under the Tsars could have been managed in much more efficient ways. The Soviet system that took its place quickly became the embodiment of the establishment.

This can be connected in many ways to any number of revolutionary movements throughout history. Once the revolution is over, the establishment must crush dissent from without and within.


Joseph Stalin (1878-1953) became, in many ways, the personification of the Soviet Union. To those in the United States he would also later be seen as the definition of Communism. In reality, Stalin betrayed the Communist ideal, and, thus, is easily more representative of extreme authoritarian practice. It is important to remember that the end goal of Communism is a stateless society, the Soviet Union under Stalin was far from that.<<<< {will the real marxist please stand up}


Many theistic conservatives make the somewhat erroneous contention that all things which are “evil” come from those lifestyles, like those of the atheist and agnostic which do not necessarily affirm the existence of God. Necessarily Communism, which tends toward atheism, falls into much the same category.


Socialism as a philosophy aims to create a society based on cooperative action. It exists as a means to wrestle control of the means of production from those who, in the capitalist system, own the working classes in one way or another. Necessarily there are many different forms of socialist thought that run the gambit from totalitarianism to anarchism.{ why real lefties can't get elected..infighting.}



Those (mainly poorly informed conservatives) who claim that all liberals, or, by extension, all Democrats, are de-facto Socialists seem to have missed the point entirely. Regardless of the political posturing that goes on in the public realm of pundits, it is clear that to a great extent both Republicans and Democrats are highly pro-establishment.

The establishment thrives off of the capitalist system and to that end neither party (especially not Republicans) wishes to remove it any time soon. To that end president Obama has little impetus or ability to impose an imaginary “socialist hellscape,” wherein all private property is confiscated and the mansions of the wealthy are reduced to burning piles of rubble.


On one side, conservatives like Rick Santorum claim that Barack Obama is a bourgeois elitist. On the other individuals like Glenn Beck claim that he is an agent of proletarian (and somehow simultaneously Fascist) revolution. Well, which is it?


Calling someone a Communist for advocating changes which are also favored by Communists is akin to branding an individual as a hedonist for enjoying a glass of wine every once in awhile. This is the type of criticism that the Obama administration has undergone during its tenure.


Much more at link. Of course i only copied the bits I like. 




So it begins.
Report Inappropriate Content
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Top Authors