February 26th, 2013

If you call someone a Marxist you’re a McCarthyite…

…and of course that’s much worse than a Marxist.

Even if the “Marxist” charge is true.

Excellent post by Ace.

if you note that Marxists are indeed Marxists it’s supposedly a sort of Hate Crime up with which we must not put.

Who made this odd rule?

Would I be correct in guessing that Marxists themselves created it and Marxists themselves (and their fellow travelers) are the major proponents of it?…

Why is there any moral objection to saying something that is true?

The only objection can come from the Marxists themselves, who prefer to work in secret, and the Democrats, who prefer their alliance with the Marxists not be noted, lest it embarrass them politically.

20 Responses to “If you call someone a Marxist you’re a McCarthyite…”

  1. George Pal Says:

    This is in keeping with the LibProSoc MO: we may quack, waddle, and wade like ducks but to point it out is worse than slander.

    The first time I had become aware of this was when William F. Buckley’s called Gore Vidal a “pink queer” on national television in 1968. It, the after-the-fact commotion, was, even to the worldly Mr Buckley, something of a surprise.

    Buckley himself was soon after referred to as a ‘faggot’ in the New York Review Of Books, the back of which contained ads of homosexuals seeking partners and hook-ups. It was just then he discovered a peculiar anomaly of public discourse (and incipient PCness): homosexuality was acceptable, but the imputation of it remained discreditable.

  2. Geoffrey Britain Says:

    I suspect it’s far more than a preference but rather a necessity. The very last thing the left wants is for the public to become aware of the fact that while the Soviet Union is no more, the ideology that gave rise to it is more widespread than ever before. That proponents of that ideology are not longer just firmly entrenched in the West but now the ruling elite in academia, the mass media, and the political leadership in nearly every western society. That these groups are actively pursuing the collapse of traditional western liberal values and their “fundamental transformation” into Marxist values.

    “We can’t expect the American People to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders into repeatedly and gradually giving them small doses of Socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism.” – Nikita Khrushchev

  3. DonS Says:

    Well, Liberation Theology is basically Marxism disguised as religion, intended to convert low information populations to Marxism.

    Marxism superfically sounds like a good idea. It is the idea that you have the right to that which you need: food, shelter, health care. That all sounds nice, as long as you ignore that none of those things fall from heaven like manna, and require human labor to produce. Many “conservative Republicans” seem to think you have a right to health care . . .

  4. Occam's Beard Says:

    The only objection can come from the Marxists themselves, who prefer to work in secret, and the Democrats, who prefer their alliance with the Marxists not be noted, lest it embarrass them politically.

    The Democrat Party is to the Communist Party as Sinn Fein was to the Provisional IRA: merely an above ground execrescence, intended to put a more acceptable face on a noxious organization, and thereby to to take in the cognitively challenged.

  5. ziontruth Says:

    “If you call someone a Marxist you’re a McCarthyite…”

    And if a Marxist calls you a McCarthyite then you should take it as a badge of honor, because if there’s anything that the last U.S. elections have proved, as well as events in the world as a whole, was that Joseph McCarthy was darn frackin’ right—heck, I’d say he was an optimist!

  6. Occam's Beard Says:

    “If you call someone a Marxist you’re a McCarthyite…”

    And conversely.

  7. holmes Says:

    We must search out all of the McCarthyite’s and destroy them!

  8. parker Says:

    The left is very good at misdirection and projecting onto their enemies their own characteristics. The leftists sincerely believe there is a difference between marxists/socialists and fascists. Stalin/Mao good, Hitler bad. Do not call them marxists, which they see as a badge of honor; instead call them fascists or latent fascists and really watch their eyeballs bulge.

  9. MollyNH Says:

    I for one “enjoy” calling them Marxists & will therefore continue to do so. I especially enjoy saying Marxists in social situations where others will give you a wary look. I happen to think its great fun !!!!

  10. Occam's Beard Says:

    Not being inclined to split hairs on trifling doctrinal differences, I call them all “Reds.”

  11. thomass Says:

    Yeah; I got into this in high school with a social studies teacher while in his class… I brought up that a lot of people accused of being communists were actually communists (he had been using a witch hunt argument)… at which point he switched to a 1 amendment argument and said being a communist should be a free speech thing. I think he lost with the audience at that point. I mean he had a point.. if we set the sedition stuff aside… Now that most young people don’t really get that a communist was basically a tool or agent of a hostile foreign power that really murdered tens of millions of people… not sure I would today…

  12. thomass Says:

    parker Says:

    ” which they see as a badge of honor; instead call them fascists or latent fascists”

    I like stalinist too.. maoist doesn’t work though since too many also see it a badge of honor thing also.

  13. waltj Says:

    For a good, if intricately detailed, read on the what, why, and how the Junior Senator from Wisconsin set out to find communists in the U.S. government and was ultimately ruined by that quest, see Blacklisted by History, M. Stanton Evans’ fine book on the topic. Without going into the minutiae here, Tailgunner Joe got it right, but was astoundingly naive about how his opponents would react. Thus, Sen. McCarthy is the one who ended up the pariah rather than the commies he outed.

  14. Occam's Beard Says:

    I brought up that a lot of people accused of being communists were actually communists (he had been using a witch hunt argument)… at which point he switched to a 1 amendment argument and said being a communist should be a free speech thing.

    The switch said it all.

    Btw, “witch hunt” seems to be one of those phrases that is utterly diagnostic of a Red sympathizer, along with, e.g., “solidarity,” “hands off,” and “defend,” and any permutation/combination of two or more of “peace,” “freedom,” “equality,” and “justice,” in juxtaposition with each other.

  15. beverly Says:

    Occam: don’t forget “The Struggle!” They’re always “struggling” with something. Or down with the struggle….

    Like German National Socialist Hitler’s magnum opus: “My Struggle.”

    Ann Coulter, to give her credit, has ridden into battle in McCarthy’s defense loudly and often. Oh, and the poor widdle Hollywood Ten? They WERE Communists. IIRC, Bogart, who went to Washington to speak to Congress in their defense, was livid when he found out they were actual Commies. Apparently he was an old-style liberal, and despised totalitarianism.

  16. nolanimrod Says:

    Democrats cannot be embarrassed. They are, in the original sense of the word, shameless.

  17. Occam's Beard Says:

    Oh, and the poor widdle Hollywood Ten? They WERE Communists.

    Unfortunately for McCarthy, the truth is/was no defense.

  18. Ymarsakar Says:

    We are not in a fight against those with different politics. The debate or argument between which works better/best, socialism for the common good or capitalism based upon a system of merit, is not the issue at hand.

    The primary and critical issue at hand is whether Good or Evil triumphs in the end, whether the forces of Light or the forces of Darkness will govern the nations of man.

    The Left here in the US can adopt all the forms of robber capitalism, become billionaires off of it while starving the poor wretches of the inner city Democrat fiefdoms, and they are not good. Just because they use capitalism to enrich themselves, does not mean they fight for the Light. William Ayers can get rich and have his own mansion based upon the backs of the proletariat, using capitalism to laundry his money, but it doesn’t make him a proponent of politics supporting capitalism.

    The issue is not about converting people from “capitalism” to “communism”, or from “communism” to “capitalism”. Those are merely human labels and tools. The Left, will be just as evil, just as filled with murderers and rapists, just as corrupt, with capitalism at their backs as with socialism and communism.

    “Politics” is not the war we fight, for it won’t determine which side wins in the end.

  19. DNW Says:

    Is there a limit to the number of links one can place in a post?

  20. DNW Says:

    Ok, I guess that it may have been the big series of links that caused my comment not to take.

    Was just trying to show a paper trail to the conclusion.

    I’ll cut to the chase. Eventually the blog articles on Cruz and his critic lead to this. A proudly dogmatic exposition precisely capturing what is at issue for those of us on the opposite, rights affirming, side.

    http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/bridge/CriticalTheory/rights.htm

    Thus:

    “Scholars participating in the Conference on Critical Legal Studies developed a critique of rights characteristic of mainstream legal thought. Feminists and critical race theorists, although showing some sympathy for this critique, nonetheless responded with defenses of rights that diverge from both critical legal studies and mainstream legal thought.

    The Critique of Rights
    The critique rights developed by critical legal theorists has five basic elements:
    1. The discourse of rights is less useful in securing progressive social change than liberal theorists and politicians assume.
    2. Legal rights are in fact indeterminate and incoherent.
    3. The use of rights discourse stunts human imagination and mystifies people about how law really works.
    4. At least as prevailing in American law, the discourse of rights reflects and produces a kind of isolated individualism that hinders social solidarity and genuine human connection.
    5. Rights discourse can actually impede progressive movement for genuine democracy and justice.

    No wonder then that it mystifyingly feels to so many that one cannot reason with the left, that conversation is really at cross purposes. It is because you really cannot reason with them on principles, and because such talk is at cross purposes.

    Yours, is to ground and understand and infer; theirs to shape.

    Neo’s friends and family aside, they, the leftist/liberals, clearly do constitute – for whatever reason and by whatever process – a morally different type of being, operating off of almost completely different anthropological premises and aiming for radically different ends.

    The sooner indignantly -if not comically – sputtering conservatives wake up to what it is that they are actually confronting, the better prepared they will be to deal with those solidarity pimping “species beings” which plan to devour their lives …

    … and possibly reconstitute all humanity in the process.

    www dot ejil.org/pdfs/3/2/2039.pdf

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>



About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon.
Read More >>






Monthly Archives



Blogroll

Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AtlasShrugs (fearless)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
Baldilocks (outspoken)
Barcepundit (theBrainInSpain)
Beldar (Texas lawman)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
Breitbart (big)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
Contentions (CommentaryBlog)
DanielInVenezuela (against tyranny)
DeanEsmay (conservative liberal)
Donklephant (political chimera)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (thinking shrink)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InFromTheCold (once a spook)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor is Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
RedState (conservative)
Maggie’sFarm (centrist commune)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
Michelle Obama's Mirror (reflections)
MudvilleGazette (milblog central)
NoPasaran! (behind French facade)
NormanGeras (principled leftist)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob’s blog)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (Jewish refugees)
Powerline (foursight)
ProteinWisdom (wiseguy)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RachelLucas (in Italy)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SecondDraft (be the judge)
SeekerBlog (inquiring minds)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
TheDoctorIsIn (indeed)
Tigerhawk (eclectic talk)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Regent Badge