October 09, 2007
The evidence for Neocommunism
By James Lewis
There is a compelling factual case to be made that the contemporary radical Left can properly be called "Neocommunist." The Hard Left is grounded in Marxist vision of creating a "new man" under a system led by a vanguard that knows best what the rest of society needs. And Neocommies behave in patterns with startling parallels to Old Communist tactics.
The Neocommies are not members of a Communist Party, and are part more of a movement than a conspiracy. They are utterly different from traditional liberalism in America and Europe. Traditional liberals were democratic -- people like Hubert Humphrey, Scoop Jackson and Harry Truman. They fought passionately against the Totalitarian Left, as Ronald Reagan did when he was president of the Screen Actors Guild. Reagan started as a democratic liberal, and became the most famous conservative of the 20th century. As he said so often, he didn't leave the Democratic Party -- it left him.
Over time, the Democrats became more totalitarian in spirit and practice after the first wave of the New Left started its takeover of the Party in the 1970s and 80s. Half a century ago, true liberal Democrats like Harry Truman told Americans the truth about Stalin and the new Cold War -- and were hated for it by the Hard Left. The American Labor movement was dominated by true liberals like George Meaney, who earned their positions by expelling Communist infiltrators, and in some cases throwing out entire Stalinist unions like the Longshoremen's Union.
Today's Labor movement has gone back to Leftist bosses. As the old industrial unions implode, victims of the burden their high wages and benefits imposed on private businesses, the leaders of the fast-growing government employee unions find politics their literal bread and butter and are pillars of the Left.
True liberals drew a bright line in the sand to separate themselves from Communists, including the Communist Party USA (CPUSA), which literally took its orders from Moscow. Combined with strong Democratic support for the national defense, the purge of Communist elements is precisely why liberals earned credibility and trust from the American people. In much of the 1950s and 1960s, "liberal" was not a dirty word, it was a boast.
Had the true liberals given in to the Communists, they would have been marginalized by American voters. A Democratic Party with a strong anti-military, anti-victory wing would never have supported a strong national defense, and would not have been trusted in the face of the obvious menace of Stalin and his heirs.
Today the voters have not yet caught on to the real radicalism of the Left. If they do, Democrats will once again have to choose between the totalitarian impulse and being small d-democrats. Because our Democrats are emphatically not small-d democrats. They will use and manipulate their voters, but they don't listen to them. Whenever possible, they accomplish unpopular policy initiatives through the courts, our least democratic government mechanism, one never designed to lead in formulating social policy.
The NeoCommies may not be conspirators, but they are heirs to an international political movement that was built on conspiracies.
Liberal or Neo-communism?
A thought-provoking article in response to recent confusion expressed by Eric and BigC about Left and Right Bias and its place in the political spectrum. When is the Left no longer liberal? ...when its become Neo-Communist.
[Excerpt below]
Full Article at http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/10/the_evidence_for_neocommunism.html
- 1895 reads
You can avoid the word verification above by joining the openDemocracy community - if you have already registered, log in here
Chris,
What's hardly worth discussion is the level of your input so far. OD is full of opinion pieces. How disappointing that you only want to discuss the ones with which you agree.
I think it's worth considering how the Left has changed, not only in America, but across Europe--or perhaps the Left in Europe has always been this radical. For Americans, the de-evolution of Democrats into Neo-communist is either a disturbing trend or a passing fad. Either way, it warrants comment.
Nearly ALL of the writings on OD are opinion or advocacy pieces. So what? Nothing here is entirely objective since it reflects the political views and bias of the author, especially those who argue a point of view.
Yes, this piece is NOT objective--it's attempting to make an argument--not reporting "news." It is the very fact that it has a provocative premise that makes it interesting for discussion. The discussions themselves can be objective, but the subject does not have to be.
Besides, you have it wrong...
I did not define the starting point, the author did. And the author suggests Democrats have de-evolved into Neo-communists, not Neo-conservatives. he provides hitorical context and examples to support his argument. I would think you might have an opinion whether yesterday's "liberal" is today's "communist" and that it is a fair question for discussion on a site devoted to worldwide democracy.
I have no idea of the political affiliations of the distinguished judges who make up the International Court of Justice. Their condemnation of Israel (by 14 to 1), in the words I quote below, is made on the basis of the law and the facts.
"In the view of the Court, cessation of Israel’s violations of its international obligations entails in practice the dismantling forthwith of those parts of that structure situated within the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem. All legislative and regulatory acts adopted with a view to its construction, and to the establishment of its associated régime, must forthwith be repealed or rendered ineffective, except where of continuing relevance to Israel’s obligation of reparation.
The Court finds further that Israel has the obligation to make reparation for the damage caused to all the natural or legal persons concerned. "
Your speculations on political bias in regard to issues discussed in OD are irrelevant when political allegiance is not the basis on which judgments are formed. Views expressed about the criminality of US/Israel actions are ethically based. As an example, I chose the very well documented case of the Israeli Wall and the unambiguous decision by the International Court of Justice as to its illegality on human rights grounds.
Unfortunately, neither President Bush nor Tony Blair has, as yet, been brought before an international tribunal, so I can't cite the decision of a court on their aggression against Iraq.
Mike, you do seem overly preoccupied with reducing everyone's point of view down to political allegiance, and therefore a political bias.
A bias within a bias, I guess.Chris,
Read the first line of the lead post again and you'll see there is an invitation to comment, if invitations are required.
You seem to be in a confused state of mind, or one of barbaric incivility, if you regard a decision of the World Court as 'incoherent dribble'. I cite this decision to exemplify that there are objective means of assessing the crimes of the US/Israel which are independent of political affiliation, whether to recognized parties or groups which exist only in the minds of those desperately seeking justification for the unjustifiable.
You're hilarious Eric, barbaric incivility? a confused state of mind? I sometimes get the feeling you're trying to be something you're not. Anyways, at first glance your comments made no sense, upon further review I now understand where you're coming from, and of course relevant comments are always welcome.
Question: was the confusing way that you entered the discussion done purposely?When considering an argument, I think its helpful to understand the political agenda from which it emanates.
Sorry, I don't buy that at all. I think political agendas can and do frequently drive judgements. Evaluating those agendas is certainly a means of weighing the veracity of the argument and the context in which it is offered. How many times have posters here speculated negatively on the "motivation" of GWB? Are you telling me those judgements are not founded upon fundamental disagreements on political points of view on the role of government?
How so much more is that true when Liberals de-evolve into Neo-communist that seek to undermine the foundation of democracy?
How about Eric's preoccupation with Israel? He has a passionate point of view that steers his judgement. "Yes" he crys, "But my view is shared by the International Criminal Court...they are "judges" so they HAVE to be impartial and make the case on ethical grounds."
Their view can't be influenced by their political perspective? Of course they can. This is one reason why GWB has refuse to cede US sovereignty to the Hague in the issue of the American Servicemens Protection Act (ASPA).
Chris,
If you are in a state of confusion 'at first glance', you might give a second glance, or even read a comment properly, before replying.
Mike,
In what respect is the decision of the World Court not in accordance with international law and in what way did political affiliations (if any) of the judges cause them to arrive at a decision not justified by the reasons they gave? Echoing the squeals of indignation of the criminals doesn't count.
Eric,
Your overly serious reaction to what was little more than a friendly off-the-cuff remark is bordering on the insane.I didn't say the the decision is not in accordance with international law--it is the subjective "interpretation" of international law that is open for dispute. That goes to the heart of the disagreement between Eric and I when international law conflicts with sovereign law.
Here's a good example for you.
http://www.state.gov/p/io/rls/rm/2002/14552.htm
Nicholas Rostow, General Counsel, U.S. Mission to the United Nations
Statement at the Fifty-seventh session of the UN General Assembly, in the Sixth Committee
New York, New York
October 14, 2002
Released by the U.S. Mission to the United Nations
The reasons for U.S. opposition to the Rome Statute as finally adopted are well known. I shall restate the fundamental points today.
First, however, let me reiterate that the United States does not seek to undermine the International Criminal Court. We respect the right of states to become parties to the Rome Statute if they wish. At the same time, our decision not to be a party also should be respected.
Our position has three principal parts.
First, the United States is concerned about the danger of politically motivated prosecutions. Examples of investigations or prosecutions based on political agenda, not evidence and neutral prosecutorial judgment, abound. The structure of the ICC makes such unacceptable proceedings possible. A prosecutor’s office, housed in a democratically responsible political branch of government, perforce is democratically accountable in a system of checks and balances. This situation will not exist in the ICC.
Second, as we stated before this body last year, the ICC has problems in the related areas of jurisdiction and due process. The power of this international tribunal is independent of consent. While sovereigns have the right to try non-citizens who have committed offenses against their citizens or on their territory, the United States has never recognized the right of an international organization to do so absent consent or a UN Security Council mandate and Security Council oversight. The ICC lacks all three. In addition, the Rome Statute raises, but does not satisfactorily answer, due process concerns. These include issues of multiple jeopardy, definitions of crimes, and problems of evidence and testimony when the Court has to harmonize various legal systems and languages.
Finally, the ICC is not part of the UN Charter system. The Rome Statute provides insufficient opportunity for Security Council oversight. And, the Assembly of States Parties is wrestling with the definition of aggression, a matter left to the Security Council by the UN Charter.
For the all these reasons, among others, the United States cannot join consensus.
Another good argument on topic...
John R. Bolton, Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security
Remarks to the Federalist Society
Washington, DC
November 14, 2002
The Court’s flaws are basically two-fold, substantive, and structural. As to the former, the ICC’s authority is vague and excessively elastic, and the Court’s discretion ranges far beyond normal or acceptable judicial responsibilities, giving it broad and unacceptable powers of interpretation that are essentially political and legislative in nature. This is most emphatically not a Court of limited jurisdiction. Crimes can be added subsequently that go beyond those included in the Rome Statute. Parties to the Statute are subject to these subsequently-added crimes only if they affirmatively accept them, but the Statute purports automatically to bind non-parties, such as the United States, to any such new crimes. It is neither reasonable nor fair that these crimes would apply to a greater extent to states that have not agreed to the terms of the Rome Statute than to those that have.
Numerous prospective "crimes" were suggested at Rome and commanded wide support from participating nations, such as the crime of "aggression," which was included in the Statute, but not defined. Although frequently easy to identify, "aggression" can at times be something in the eye of the beholder. For example, Israel justifiably feared in Rome that certain actions, such as its initial use of force in the Six Day War, would be perceived as illegitimate preemptive strikes that almost certainly would have provoked proceedings against top Israeli officials. Moreover, there seems little doubt that Israel will be the target of a complaint in the ICC concerning conditions and practices by the Israeli military in the West Bank and Gaza. Israel recently decided to declare its intention not to become a party to the ICC or to be bound by the Statute’s obligations.
A fair reading of the treaty leaves one unable to answer with confidence whether the United States would now be accused of war crimes for legitimate but controversial uses of force to protect world peace. No U.S. Presidents or their advisors could be assured that they would be unequivocally safe from politicized charges of criminal liability.
As troubling as the ICC’s substantive and jurisdictional problems are, the problems raised by the Statute’s main structures -- the Court and the Prosecutor -- are still worse. The ICC does not, and cannot, fit into a coherent, international structural "constitutional" design that delineates clearly how laws are made, adjudicated or enforced, subject to popular accountability and structured to protect liberty. There is no such design, nor should there be. Instead, the Court and the Prosecutor are simply "out there" in the international system. Requiring the United States to be bound by this treaty, with its unaccountable Prosecutor and its unchecked judicial power, is clearly inconsistent with American standards of constitutionalism. This is a macro-constitutional issue for us, not simply a narrow, technical point of law.
We are considering, in the Prosecutor, a powerful and necessary element of executive power, the power of law-enforcement. Never before has the United States been asked to place any of that power outside the complete control of our national government without our consent. Our concern goes beyond the possibility that the Prosecutor will target for indictment the isolated U.S. soldier who violates our own laws and values by allegedly committing a war crime. Our principal concern is for our country’s top civilian and military leaders, those responsible for our defense and foreign policy. They are the ones potentially at risk at the hands of the ICC’s politically unaccountable Prosecutor, as part of an agenda to restrain American discretion, even when our actions are legitimated by the operation of our own constitutional system.
Unfortunately, the United States has had considerable experience in the past two decades with domestic "independent counsels," and that history argues overwhelmingly against international repetition. Simply launching massive criminal investigations has an enormous political impact. Although subsequent indictments and convictions are unquestionably more serious, a zealous independent Prosecutor can make dramatic news just by calling witnesses and gathering documents, without ever bringing formal charges.
Indeed, the supposed "independence" of the Prosecutor and the Court from "political" pressures (such as the Security Council) is more a source of concern than an element of protection. "Independent" bodies in the UN system have often proven themselves more highly politicized than some of the explicitly political organs. True political accountability, by contrast, is almost totally absent from the ICC.
The American concept of separation of powers, imperfect though it is, reflects our settled belief that liberty is best protected when the various authorities legitimately exercised by government are, to the maximum extent possible, placed in separate branches. So structuring the national government, the Framers believed, would prevent the excessive accumulation of power in a limited number of hands, thus providing the greatest protection for individual liberty. Continental European constitutional structures do not, by and large, reflect a similar set of beliefs. They do not so thoroughly separate judicial from executive powers, just as their parliamentary systems do not so thoroughly separate executive from legislative powers. That, of course, is entirely Europe’s prerogative, and may help to explain why Europeans appear to be more comfortable with the ICC’s structure, which closely melds prosecutorial and judicial functions in the European fashion.
Mike,
What is 'subjective' about the decision of the World Court that Israel is in violation of international law in building the Wall on Occupied Palestinian Territory and to meet its obligations under international law must demolish the Wall where so built and pay compensation? What are the supposed political allegiances which weighed on the judges and caused them to give what you are claiming is, in some way you don't make clear, a judgment which is invalid.
I can only imagine you have some bias in favour of Israel which prevents you from accepting the impartial judgement of leading jurists on the subject.
Eric,
You're right...I was mixing the International Criminal Court with the International Court of Justice (AKA, World Court)...although the same arguments are on target to our discussion of those occasions when international law is in conflict with domestic US law.
However, it is worth noting the WC is not without bias. Columbia Law School (not known as bastion of conservative values) studied WC judges voting records and found definitive bias--a national bias that in itself could be considered a form of political bias.
I do not personally have a bias in favor of Israel, but recognize the strategic importance of Israel as a democratic ally in a generally undemocratic part of the world. I sypathize with the plight of the Palestinians, but their terrorist attacks and refusal to negotiate also make Israeli defenses like the wall, entirely understandable. Like it or not, the wall has decreased attacks. So it's hard to convince Israel that the wall does not have value. Ultimately, the WC ruling is irrelevant since it cannot enforce an advisory ruling. What's changed since the article below was published?
Liberal or Neo-communism?
It's a very legitimate question.
A lot of the liberal opinions are a call for a regyme change. Not every person born in the West beleives in democracy and capitalism.W.L.,
I've yet to see any argument lending legitimacy to that question, and just to show my NON-bias, I'd find it equally absurd to accept the claim that American Republicans are new neo-fascists? Yet I'd bet good money there are left-wing nuts out there with political blogs doing just that. Doesn't make it valid though.
L.W.
I wonder if Chris' objections are typical in the sense the lines are becoming blurred in the minds of many within the Left and Right to the extent that many cannot see the differences between Neo-communism and liberal democrats and conservatives and NeoCons/Fascists?
I concur with you that both extremes are dangerous. The difficulty is defining the "middle" which seems to be a moving target affected by cultural and historical differences.
Perhaps this fellow Chris is a-typical in that he looks for substance rather than speculation and loose conjecture when evaluating questions.
Put another way, this guy Chris might find Mike's question, as asked and supported, no more legitimate than the countless questions and links the local OD kook, Solve, asks and provides.Or perhaps this fellow Chris cannot recognize substance from speculation? The article provided offers conclusions based on reality, not speculation.
As usual however, Chris' best defense is go offensive and dismiss the argument, rather than take it on. Of course, Chris has plenty of company here. No one is forcing you to post here. You can ignore these threads just like Solve's threads. Unlike Solve, I actually respond.
Mike,
I was being honest in my evaluation of your question and the piece you posted, and it would appear that from the response you've received to it thus far, I'm not the only one who thinks this way.
Now you can bitch and complain that nobody wants to indulge your litle argument because of some fault of THEIRS, or you can simply accept people are simply disinterested in it for whatever reason. I've posted a few threads where I've put in a lot more effort than it takes to read some like-minded person's blog, and when nobody here was interested I didn't go blaming them, maybe you need to get over your self a little bit, huh?
Chris,
I think you misperceived my position. L.W and I obviously recognize the potential de-evolution of both Right and Left into an extremism that threatens democracy. You and others ether do not recognize or dismiss it as "speculation" and either refuse to engage or lazily ignore the arguments and evidence provided.
That's fine. Since we are being honest here, no one is a bigger supporter of free speech than me and that includes a freedom to ignore the thread altogether...especially if you have nothing to refute the argument.
Refute the argument? What argument? You mean that partisan jibberish you're trying to pass off as an argument?
No thanks.
Exactly! Your way to avoid an argument is to deny its existence. That's Okay. I support your right to do so.
Take whatever simple-minded satisfaction it is you require with your bizarre reasoning as I'm not here to win a battle of wits with you, at least not on this issue. However, my point remains the same - that the piece you've linked to is an opinion piece only, not a valid argument.
BTW, if the 'argument' as you like to call it, is so damn persuasive, why haven't you elaborated and/or built on it? Or does somebody else always have to do your thinking for you?
W.L.,
The busiest time of this site, since I've been a member anyways, was also the most bitter and mean spirited time I've seen on this site, so your argument dosen't pass the sniff test.
Besides, Mike and I are being almost downright cordial to one another and I don't think beyond our disagreements that we have any real hostility towards one another.
I have no problem kicking your a$$ and buying you a beer!
I think you missed the point.
Mike,
Very few people outside of school would have ever any reason to read any of the books written by the top ten, but most will know the consequences of Marxism over the past hundred and fifty years, particularly in Europe. Personally, I'm unmoved by Karl Marx as his writing have never resonated with me, but I do understand the importance of his writings on our recent history. That he was chosen above the others shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone, and I don't see any reason to read any thing into it other than that Marx has had the biggest, most obvious, and most recent impact on our lives.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and not a commie in disguise.Chris,
Thank you for being a gentleman. This quality of your character remains undefeated as ever.
I sense a general misconception of the the argument. I don't think the point is that all liberals are neo-communists, and not particularly in the government, and not only in the United States.
The question perhaps is in how many neo-communists represent themselves as neo-liberals, and how they deform moderm liberalism.
While that may or may not be true--it's not the point. The point is "geographical ignorance" implies a larger ignorance of the world as a whole and likely the politics and history driving it. Such ignorance (useful idiot) is ripe for exploitation, as noted by the heros of your "revolution."
Thank God...at least L.W gets it right!
Eric:
'the author suggests Democrats have DE-EVOLVED into Neo-communists'
'How so much more is that true when Liberals DE-EVOLVED into Neo-communist'
But THEN claim to agree with L.W.'s statement?
'The question perhaps is in how many neo-communists represent themselves as neo-liberals,
That's a completely different question!!!!
I disagree. That's all part of the same discussion.
See if you can follow this...
Democrats are liberals. Liberals have de-evolved into Neo-Communists. The Neo-Communists continue to wave the Neo-Liberal (or "Progressive") flag to maintain respectability. Perhaps if they all grew goatees and carried a hammer and sickle flag, it would be more obvious.
Post new comment