Quantcast

Allen West's Communist Delusions Implicate Woodrow Wilson

ProudProgressive 2012/04/19 13:14:39

Congress' most disgraceful member, torturer, Islamophobe, mysogynist Allen West (R-FL), has of late been trying to channel another famous Congressional disgrace, Joseph McCarthy (R-WI) in making ludicrous claims that numerous (unnamed) Democratic members of Congress are actually communists. West, like most Right Wingers, appears to have no idea what communism actually involves, and of course his charges have no basis in fact, but reality rarely stands in the way of the Right Wing's desperate ploys to try to distract the American public from President Obama's many accomplishments. Now West has piled on, and claimed that Woodrow Wilson was a communist. Wilson isn't my favorite President by a long shot, but he was by no means anything approaching a communist. Maybe West will go after Lincoln next. After all, communism treats black people and white people as equals, so Lincoln MUST have been a communist.

Article excerpt follows:

Allen West's Communist Conspiracy Implicates Woodrow Wilson
—By Adam Serwer
Wed Apr. 18, 2012

Allen West has been on a tear recently trying to defend his assertion that liberal Democrats are actually communists. West's argument focuses not on Democrats' commitment to the dictatorship of the proletariat or the elimination of private enterprise, but the fact that Democrats generally support public assistance and regulation of private industry.

All of this is ridiculous, but perhaps my favorite West assertion of late is the idea that President Woodrow Wilson was a communist. Here is Mr. West's reasoning, as relayed by TPM's Eric Kleefield:

I think that if you would take the time to study the political spectrum of ideologies, you’d understand that at the turn of the [20th] century, American Communists renamed themselves as progressives. If you study the Woodrow Wilson administration, people referred to the Woodrow Wilson administration as a progressive administration.

So Wilson described himself as progressive, and progressive just means communist, so Wilson was a communist. This is fifth-grade logic.

Tim Weiner's excellent history of the FBI goes into great detail about Wilson's record on communism, but here are a few examples of how President Wilson, in real life, dealt with self-identified communists and socialists:

Wilson imprisoned and deported communists, socialists, and leftists for just generally holding views he found subversive.

Wilson threw American Socialist Party leader Eugene V. Debs, who had garnered nearly a million votes running against Wilson in 1912, in prison for speaking out against the imprisonment of anti-war leftists.

Wilson sent American soldiers to support Czarist forces against Bolshevik revolutionaries during the Russian civil war in 1918.

Wilson appointed A. Mitchell Palmer as his Attorney General. The iconic 1920 Palmer Raids resulted in mass arrests and deportations of suspected leftists of all stripes.


How many communists do you have to kill and/or throw in prison to not be considered a communist? It's not like Wilson lacks for actual flaws either, given that he was a huge racist and Confederate sympathizer, among other things.

At this point, you're probably thinking that Wilson, the self-identified progressive, might be better described as an anti-communist than a communist. But that's because you're not looking at the big picture. Wilson's assault on civil liberties eventually resulted in the formation of the American Civil Liberties Union, which—I'm about to blow your mind—was obviously the plan all along.

Partisan derangement is usually directed at a president currently in office; West is gifted in the sense that he's able to maintain a right-wing fever swamp perspective on a president elected a hundred years ago. But if a guy who locks up communists for protesting wars can't catch a break because he supports a federal income tax, the House Progressive Caucus probably doesn't have much of a chance either.

Read More: http://motherjones.com/mojo/2012/04/allen-wests-co...

You!
Add Photos & Videos

Top Opinion

  • Rebel Yell 2012/04/19 14:15:39 (edited)
    Rebel Yell
    +4
    Few people take West seriously. He is like an annoying little poodle, always yapping. For some odd reason, the little man is filled with self importance. Like that little poodle, he has no true agenda other than constantly attacking some one. That is his only claim to fame. He'll be lucky to hold on to his congressional seat.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • YouSirName 2012/04/22 15:46:21
    YouSirName
    West is a foolish demagogue. This too will pass (pun intended).
  • Marek 2012/04/20 07:56:24
    Marek
    The word "progressive" as the word "liberal" are labels that have different meaning today from their original definitions. Those words are used now by various marxist communist groups as fig leafs to cover up the naked truth about who they really are.
  • jgh57 2012/04/20 06:49:01
    jgh57
    West is just another right wing nut job.
  • Marek jgh57 2012/04/20 07:35:51
    Marek
    Allen West is right. The so called socialists in Congress number about 80.
    socialists in congress
    socialists in congress
    socialists in congress
  • ProudPr... Marek 2012/10/16 23:22:14
    ProudProgressive
    The traitor Allen West said there were "card carrying Communists". There aren't any.
  • Marek ProudPr... 2012/10/16 23:33:57
    Marek
    Anyone calling Allen West a traitor is out of his mind or a communist traitor himself.
    Card carrying communists is an expression describing true believers in communism and right now there are dozens of them in Congress and Senate and one in the White House.
  • Ozymandias 2012/04/20 06:42:05
  • Iamfree 2012/04/20 05:26:44
    Iamfree
    +2
    West is wrong...Congress is loaded with 70-80 Progressives, not Communists.

    That said, you are wrong as well. McCarthy was proven right by disclosures from the VENONA project.
  • Marek Iamfree 2012/04/20 07:42:49
    Marek
    The progressives are communists. The renaming was necessary because they could not get elected if they called themselves communists.
    take a look at Progressive Labor Party which is Stalinist Communist in its core.
    communists renaming elected communists progressive labor party stalinist communist core
    Progressive Labor Party
  • luvguins 2012/04/19 21:50:10
    luvguins
    +3
    This worthless member of Congress now has to be the most ignorant one there. I don't know how he convinced the people in FL to elect him, but if they have been watching him kick constituents out of his town hall meetings for questioning what he says, I hope they will get rid of him in November. Congress doesn't need someone as divisive and rude as he is with all the other regressive and divisive tea party neocons they have. He has insulted the president and just about any other Democrat he's had contact with.
  • Kaleokualoha 2012/04/19 21:10:53
    Kaleokualoha
    +1
    Any assertion that Progressives must be communists displays a profound ignorance of economic theory. In a nutshell, communism requires the ELIMINATION of private enterprise and the collective ownership of the means of production. Allen West's ignorance of economics, coupled with his prisoner abuse, clearly reflect the Peter Principle personified.

    Just as Chicken Little started a "sky is falling" hysteria based on a falling acorn, so too are various critics pushing a "socialist" or "Marxist" Obama hysteria based on Obama's economic policies. Not only do they conveniently forget that the 2008 bailout was initiated by the Bush administration, but they also seem to have forgotten some basics from Econ 101. They could easily avoid such non sequitur nonsense by following the evidence instead of jumping to conclusions.

    According to dictionary.com, socialism is "a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. In Marxist theory, it is the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles."

    Please note that it is the stage FOLLOWING capitalism...


















    Any assertion that Progressives must be communists displays a profound ignorance of economic theory. In a nutshell, communism requires the ELIMINATION of private enterprise and the collective ownership of the means of production. Allen West's ignorance of economics, coupled with his prisoner abuse, clearly reflect the Peter Principle personified.

    Just as Chicken Little started a "sky is falling" hysteria based on a falling acorn, so too are various critics pushing a "socialist" or "Marxist" Obama hysteria based on Obama's economic policies. Not only do they conveniently forget that the 2008 bailout was initiated by the Bush administration, but they also seem to have forgotten some basics from Econ 101. They could easily avoid such non sequitur nonsense by following the evidence instead of jumping to conclusions.

    According to dictionary.com, socialism is "a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. In Marxist theory, it is the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles."

    Please note that it is the stage FOLLOWING capitalism. Capitalism has many forms in a mixed economy, with public (collective) ownership of various enterprises based upon economic conditions. Limited public ownership does not comprise Marxist socialism, which requires complete public ownership. When controlled by a police state, however, limited public ownership may become fascism ("national socialism"), Marxist socialism, or even "perfect implementation of collectivist principles." Limited public ownership occurs at virtually every point on the mixed economy spectrum.

    Every advocate of greater government economic control might be called a "socialist," but none are true socialists unless they advocate the complete elimination of private enterprise, which requires the complete replacement of capitalism with collectivism. True (laissez-faire) capitalism means zero government control of private enterprise, which is economic anarchy. Neither of these extremes works in the long run. Every successful economy is a mixed economy, existing somewhere on a spectrum between both extremes. Every successful economy is part capitalist and part socialist. They all contain a mix of private and public ownership, and they all have some government control of private enterprise. The only relevant question is "WHERE on this spectrum can we achieve the greatest success?" The rise of Asian economies, with their varying degrees of centralized planning, proves that economic planning helps economic development.

    Both laissez faire capitalism and true communism are artificial constructs, as impossible to sustain as cold fusion. Every successful society requires private enterprise regulated by public policy, regardless of Ayn Rand's fantasies. Extremists on either fringe are equally delusional. In some ways regulation is a necessary evil like body fat: too much or too little are both lethal. The normal tendency is to add layers with age. The challenge is to find the level that will produce the optimum outcome, all things considered.

    Unless someone advocates the complete replacement of capitalism with collectivism, they do not truly advocate socialism or communism. To accuse them of either, when they have not explicitly advocated as much themselves, suggests either unfamiliarity with mixed economies or intellectual dishonesty. Even George W. Bush and John McCain were accused of advocating socialism based upon their support of 2008 bailout legislation.

    The bottom line is simple. If you consider any variation of a mixed economy, including ANY public ownership or regulation of industry to be "socialism," then the United States and ALL other economies are "socialist." The debate is over, because by that definition we have been "socialist" since the 18th century. If you only consider complete collectivism to be "socialism," according to Marxist theory, then no successful economy is actually "socialist." The closest to a Marxist socialist economy is the economic basket case, North Korea. If you consider socialism to occur at some other point on the spectrum between unregulated capitalism and Marxist socialism, then any such point would be arbitrary.

    To accuse a mixed economy advocate of being a socialist or communist suggests that you believe that ANY degree of government regulation qualifies as "socialism," or that you believe that any regulation beyond an indefinite "trigger point" qualifies as "socialism,", and that YOU get to set the trigger point. The "trigger point" explanation reminds me of the egocentric explorer who says that anyone who explores farther into dangerous territory is a fool, but anyone who doesn’t explore as far as he does is a coward. His arrogance presumes that his own boundaries are common standards.

    Marxist "socialism," in contrast to European "democratic socialism," requires collective ownership of the means of production in lieu of capitalism. That is the death of private enterprise. We may or may not be on a path to collectivism, just as a dating couple may or may not be on a path to pregnancy. Traveling on a path in any direction does not imply any specific goal. For example, traveling on Interstate 10 does not imply that either coast is the goal.

    "Direction" is one thing. "Goal" is another. All mixed economies exist at some point in the spectrum between the fatal terminuses of unregulated capitalism and true socialism. In most Marxist states, however, capitalism reappeared as people recognized the lethal consequences of such extremes. Russia, China and other communist nations now recognize the virtue of mixed economies. They learned the hard way.

    I await empirical evidence, instead of specious speculation, that Obama wants to eliminate capitalism by moving to that extreme. To say Obama advocates the goal of socialism, based upon his movement on the spectrum instead of being based on his explicit advocacy, is to create a straw man. It is intellectually dishonest and unworthy of serious debate.

    The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.
    - Proverbs 1:7
    (more)
  • Marek Kaleoku... 2012/04/20 07:50:58
    Marek
    Quote from you comment; "Please note that it is the stage FOLLOWING capitalism..."
    Apparently you memorized your little red book.
    That is right! Marks said that and he also claimed that communist revolution is inevitable in industrialized nations and he was wrong about it. For communism to come to power a national crisis of immense proportions is necessary as it was proved by the 1917 Bolshevik revolution in Russia, and that is why the commies/progressives are trying to ruin US economy to bring about that crisis.
  • Kaleoku... Marek 2012/04/20 17:43:57
    Kaleokualoha
    Problems with reading comprehension, Grasshoppa? The definition of "socialism" is from dictionary.com, not any "little red book."

    The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.
    - Proverbs 1:7
  • Marek Kaleoku... 2012/10/16 23:16:20
    Marek
    You are what Lenin called so aptly a "liberal useful idiot."
  • ProudPr... Marek 2012/10/16 23:24:05
    ProudProgressive
    Yeah, don't you just hate it when someone actually has the ability to distinguish fact from fiction? Jealousy, I'd say.
  • Kaleoku... Marek 2012/10/16 23:38:41 (edited)
    Kaleokualoha
    It seems that a "liberal useful idiot" uses the dictionary, while conservative useful idiots make up their own definitions.

    Such rhetorical deception was highlighted in the story of Alice's adventures in "Through The Looking-Glass,"

    "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone. "It means just what I choose it to mean - neither more or less."
    "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
    "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - that's all."
    - Lewis Carroll, English author & recreational mathematician (1832 - 1898)


    "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
  • ProudPr... Kaleoku... 2012/10/16 23:23:24
    ProudProgressive
    Marks? And you're still wasting your time with this one?
  • Marek ProudPr... 2012/10/16 23:50:14
    Marek
    I wish Marks was irrelevant but enough useful liberal idiots believe in his idea of communism that it merits some time to remind people that his ideology is the cause of over 120 million political murders committed by his disciples.
    liberal idiot
  • Rebel Yell 2012/04/19 14:15:39 (edited)
    Rebel Yell
    +4
    Few people take West seriously. He is like an annoying little poodle, always yapping. For some odd reason, the little man is filled with self importance. Like that little poodle, he has no true agenda other than constantly attacking some one. That is his only claim to fame. He'll be lucky to hold on to his congressional seat.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/09/03 05:24:18

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals