Allen West's Communist Delusions Implicate Woodrow Wilson
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...
Top Opinion
-
+4Few 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.
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.
That said, you are wrong as well. McCarthy was proven right by disclosures from the VENONA project.
take a look at Progressive Labor Party which is Stalinist Communist in its core.
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...
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
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.
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.
- Proverbs 1:7
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.