By Jonah Goldberg
Friday, October 06, 2017
The New York Times
is not widely known as a hotbed of necromancy — the mystical science of
communicating with or even raising the dead — but I’m starting to wonder if it
is trying to get my late father to come back to earth so he can walk through
the Gray Lady’s offices and slap the editors with a semi-frozen mackerel.
The Times has
been running a series on Communism called “The Red Century.” It’s really,
really weird. At times, it feels like the greatest high-brow trolling effort in
recorded history. Some of the headlines read like they were plucked from the
reject pile at The Onion. I
particularly enjoyed “Why Women Had Better Sex Under Socialism.” One wonders
what all the women who had to service their prison guards for a crust of bread
would think about that. With the exception of one essay by Harvey Klehr, the
upshot seems to be an effort to rehabilitate Communism for a certain kind of New York Times liberal who desperately
needs to cling to the belief that he was on the right side of an argument he
lost.
The tone is less “Communism was awesome” and more “Well,
we sophisticated people understand it was a mixed bag, so let’s focus on the
bright spots.” E.g., Mao’s collectivization liberated women from domestic
service and put them to work in factories (that is the millions of women who
weren’t killed in the process).
This passage from Vivian Gornick’s gauzy memoir of
Communism captures the overall spirit of the series (emphasis mine):
Most Communists never set foot in
party headquarters, laid eyes on a Central Committee member, or were privy to
policy-making sessions. But every rank-and-filer knew that party unionists were
crucial to the rise of industrial labor; party lawyers defended blacks in the
South; party organizers lived, worked, and sometimes died with miners in
Appalachia; farm workers in California; steel workers in Pittsburgh. What made
it all real were the organizations the party built: the International Workers
Order, the National Negro Congress, the Unemployment Councils. Whenever some
new world catastrophe announced itself throughout the Depression and World War
II, The Daily Worker sold out in minutes.
It is perhaps hard to understand
now, but at that time, in this place, the Marxist vision of world solidarity as
translated by the Communist Party induced in the most ordinary of men and women
a sense of one’s own humanity that ran deep, made life feel large; large and
clarified. It was to this clarity of inner being that so many became
not only attached, but addicted. No reward of life, no love nor fame nor
wealth, could compete with the experience. It was this all-in-allness of world
and self that, all too often, made of the Communists true believers who could
not face up to the police state corruption at the heart of their faith, even
when a 3-year-old could see that it was eating itself alive.
I wrote about Gornick’s essay on the Corner at the time,
so I won’t dwell on it now. But the ideas here and throughout the series are
fairly obvious, because so many of them hardened into sad clichés long ago. The
motives were good! The revolution was betrayed! “Real” socialism is a worthy
goal! It’s never been tried!
Frankly, I find the Twitter feed of the Socialist Party
of Great Britain more entertaining and more honest:
Are you about to tell us “Socialism
was tried in Russia” or “Look at Venezuela” etc? It has NEVER EXISTED! It comes
AFTER global capitalism! pic.twitter.com/Rr1Ra0ugbE
— The Socialist Party
(@OfficialSPGB) November 16, 2016
Venezuela does not have socialism
(a class-free society with no ruling elite). It has a leftwing state-run
profit-driven capitalist economy. pic.twitter.com/KpkiUCA0NA
— The Socialist Party
(@OfficialSPGB) October 5, 2017
It’s an incredibly useful debating tactic to say that
every failed socialist country wasn’t really socialist because it had a ruling
class. The problem is that there will never be a “true” socialist country
because ruling classes are inevitable. The unapologetic reds should spend a
little less time reading Marx and read more Max Nomad, Milovan Djilas, Max
Schachtman, James Burnham, and other Communists and former Communists who
understood that any attempt to create a “true socialist” society runs into the
Iron Law of Oligarchy. Every organization requires some small group of people
to make important decisions. They may use their special knowledge and power to
help people, but it’s also a sure bet that they will use it to help themselves
as well. A society without democratic institutions and market mechanisms by its
nature will invest bureaucrats with enormous power to make choices about how
other people will live.
Anyway, what got me thinking about Communism in the first
place was
this story. It turns out that Russian meddling in the election wasn’t
reserved for generating an army of MAGA Twitter bots:
A social media campaign calling
itself “Blacktivist” and linked to the Russian government used both Facebook
and Twitter in an apparent attempt to amplify racial tensions during the U.S.
presidential election, two sources with knowledge of the matter told CNN.
This is amusing for a bunch of reasons, but the relevant
one brings us back to the Times’ Red
Century stuff. It is absolutely true that many dedicated American Communists
and Communist sympathizers cared sincerely and passionately about civil rights.
And that cause was indeed good and noble. But what gets left out of the picture
is that Soviet support for their cause was not good and noble. It was, simply,
evil and cynical. First of all, the notion that a totalitarian dictatorship
that murdered and enslaved its own people actually cared about civil rights for
Americans shouldn’t have passed the laugh test.
But on the matter of Russia’s meddling in American
politics, the hypocrisy of American liberals isn’t remotely captured by
shouting “Romney was right!” about Russia.
Russia’s meddling in American politics has continued,
with only the briefest interruption in the 1990s, for a century. Liberals may
only recently have discovered “fake news” — but that crap has been made in
Russia for decades. The Soviets, with the aid of useful idiots and
even-more-useful agents, convinced large swathes of the world that the CIA
created AIDS. During the Korean War, they fabricated “confessions” and other
evidence that America used biological-warfare weapons. The Soviets undermined
democratic societies — and developing countries throughout the world — with
conspiracy theories planted in newspapers and TV shows and peddled by seemingly
legitimate academics. Moscow’s Patrice Lumumba University (no really) granted
Ph.D.s in Holocaust denial and anti-Zionist canards.
The Soviets loved black radicals in the U.S. not because
they gave a rat’s ass about black empowerment or civil rights but because they
wanted to sow unrest in America. At minimum, they liked to use images of civil
unrest for even greater propaganda victories. But the ultimate goal, until the
very end of the Cold War, was the collapse of the United States.
I’d go into further detail, but ThinkProgress actually has a very good article on this history:
For instance, as described in
Christopher Andrew’s The Sword and the
Shield, a detailed composition of KGB operations compiled by a former KGB
archivist, Soviet operations to stoke racial tensions spiked in the 1960s and
1970s. In 1967, Moscow aimed at removing Martin Luther King, Jr., from his
leadership role within the broader civil rights movement. Per Andrew, KGB
higher-ups approved a plan to “place articles in the African press, which could
then be reprinted in American newspapers, portraying King as an ‘Uncle Tom’ who
was secretly receiving government subsidies to tame the civil rights movement
and prevent it threatening the Johnson administration.” (Writes Andrew, MLK
“was probably the only prominent American to be the target of active measures
by both the FBI and the KGB.”)
As War is Boring’s Darien Cavanaugh added, the campaign sought to
replace King with Stokely Carmichael, hoping a less pacifist leader would help
spark a race war within the U.S. The drive also included, in a harbinger of the
Facebook ads to come, distributing fabricated pamphlets that showed far-right
groups bent on “developing a plan for the physical elimination of leading
figures in the Negro movement in the U.S.”
Growing bolder by the early 1970s,
the KGB moved beyond innuendo into a far more violent strain of its campaign.
Moscow higher-ups — including then-KGB chief Yuri Andropov, who would
eventually lead the Soviet Union in the early 1980s — signed off on pamphlets,
to be sent to African-American militants, which said that Jewish vigilante
groups viewed them as “black mongrels.” Writes Cavanaugh, the pamphlets “were
distributed to 30 black militant groups in the New York area.”
Meanwhile, the KGB approved a plan
to release explosives in “the Negro section of New York,” with one KGB official
suggesting bombing “one of the Negro colleges” as a back-up option. Following
the planned bombing, KGB agents would then issue anonymous phone calls “to two
or three black organizations, claiming that the explosion was the work of the
Jewish Defense League.”
I know this is running long, but two points need to be
made. First, when you read about how American Communists and fellow-travelers
had the best of intentions and were on the right side of history, bear in mind
that these people were at best noble dupes and useful idiots for an evil empire.
Second, for the conservatives out there who have suddenly
developed a strange new respect for Vladimir Putin because he’s a “strong
leader” or some other flaming garbage, you should keep in mind that the former
KGB agent is an unapologetic creature of that evil empire, shorn of Marxist
pretense. He is doing to America today what he was trained to do.
No comments:
Post a Comment