Back in the day, anyone marching for peace was called a "Communist" by, well, certain people. After all, that was the Great Satan of the day. I recall one such demo in Montreal, attended by (as I remember) one lonely member of the Young Communist League. The Montreal Star dutifully reported on the "Communist-supported" demonstration. That was about par for the course.
So excuse me if I don't get all moist when red-baiting turns to Islamist-baiting in the present day. Some of us are old enough to have seen that movie before, and it was, frankly, better in black and white.
The notion that any of us on the Left except a tiny handful of very confused individuals with incoherent ideologies finds anything to like in fundamentalist Islam is so ludicrous that the very outrageousness of the statement makes it that much more credible for the gullible. A bit like--why, 9-ll Trutherism, and just as believable.
Have a big peace demo and all kinds of people show up, with all kinds of axes to grind. That doesn't mean that everyone knows each other, and certainly doesn't mean that they agree with each other, Glavin's disingenuous rant to the contrary.
I think Glavin's point is about the "anti-war" movement leadership, not most of the people taking part in their demonstrations.
Posted at 2008-04-03 06:18:21 [PermaLink]Dr Dawg:
There you go with your "tiny handful" argument again. I doubt you are impressed when the radical free speechers defend unfettered speech on the basis than only a "tiny handful" of folks hold racist or dangerous views. In the first place, there is plenty of evidence that the left (and some paleo-conservatives like Margolis) has been infected by what Glavin is talking about, particularly on campus's, the media and within Muslim communities. Organized feminism has clearly decided the plight of Muslim women is secondary to the glorious struggle against the neo-cons and murderous North American patriarchy. Bob Rae called the NDP out on anti-Semitism several years ago and may have left the party for it in part. In the second place, there are plenty of historical examples of determined, organized "tiny handfuls" silencing or even co-opting the mainstream. It's natural to root for the home team and take a "boys will be boys" attitude to their excesses and indulgences, but this is serious stuff. Virtue doesn't lie within the confines of a particular political philosophy and the 50s don't have a lot to do with today.
You know, it's hard to tell. I struggled through the article: I see Glavin has learned the academic's trick of adding several pages of footnotes, and I followed some of his references. I'm afraid I remain unconvinced. He sprinkles his piece with pure fantasy--get on a bus and say "Afghanistan," he claims, and someone will invariably sneer "George Bush." (I plan to put this bizarre claim to the test.) Criticism of Israel is associated with anti-Semitism, one of the hoariest canards of the current Right. Maybe I'll do a proper critique at my place if I get the time or inclination.
This isn't to argue that there aren't strange bedfellows in politics, of course--take neo-Nazis and the speech warriors, for example. I don't doubt for a moment that some addled individuals, in search of a grand narrative (no, Glavin doesn't know what "post-modernism" is), try to find something of that sort in radical Islam, and latch on to the anti-American piece. But one shouldn't mistake the part for the whole, something that Glavin does routinely for his own political purposes.
Personally I've never thought of pompous windbags like George Galloway as left-wing, and there are a couple of other equally noisome loons around as well, but the peace movement is the usual diverse bunch, most of whom want, well, peace. And, just as I rejected similar claims forty years ago, I reject the notion that the leadership is some cloak-and-dagger Islamist operation manipulating the rubes. That kind of conspirazoid thinking is uncomfortably close to Trutherism, and I simply don't buy it.
Peter:
You make a lot of sweeping claims--just as Glavin does--but these days I'm evidence driven, so let's see some of that to back up claims that feminists, for example, are now closet, or not-so-closet, Islamists. (And please don't quote that wingnut Phyllis Chesler, who now believes that Muslim cab drivers are an organized fifth column.)
Sounds as though a border fence in the north is needed.
Posted at 2008-04-03 06:57:23 [PermaLink]JPGR:
I might even agree with you:
[External Link]
Dr. Dawg,
A lot of what you said seems reasonable if I take your words and those of the peace activists at face value.
It's the "at face value" I'm having trouble with.
You said
"but the peace movement is the usual diverse bunch, most of whom want, well, peace."
I'll believe it when I see them protesting Iran, China, or any number of other regimes and wars around the world on a consistent basis rather than mostly showing up at the nearest US embassy or consolate.
I'll believe it when I see self-described peace activists actually nod their heads in agreement with right-wingers when the right-wingers are describing terrible regimes like China, Iran, N. Korea instead of saying "yeah but the US..."
Actions speak louder than words.
More at Mr Glavin's blog:
"Anti-Zionism and Anti-War Activism in Canada"
[External Link]
Check the video.
Mark
Ottawa
Re: "You make a lot of sweeping claims--just as Glavin does--but these days I'm evidence driven,"
Ahem.
"The majority of the people at Montreal's protest were condemning Israeli attacks and defending Hezbollah rocket attacks, an attitude common to many of the anti-war protests in Montreal since the beginning of the conflict."
[External Link]
"We're seeing the leaders of opposition parties marching in Montreal under Hezbollah flags -- Hezbollah, which is an organization, a terrorist organization that's been outlawed by Canadian law," Alan Baker, Israel's envoy to Canada, said at a press conference yesterday on Parliament Hill."
[External Link]
The esteemed MP Denis Coderre marched in the rally where Hezbollah flags were prominently displayed.
"The esteemed MP Denis Coderre marched in the rally where Hezbollah flags were prominently displayed".
Yeah, and claimed he didn't notice them when questioned afterwards!
John P. "Yeah, and claimed he didn't notice them when questioned afterwards!"
Coderre must have learned that from his old boss Chretien who claimed he didn't know who Nasrallah was during the Francophonie summit in Beirut.
Johnb B, when it suits him, every week is white-cane week for Mr Corderre!
Those '06 demos in downtown Montréal were attended by every Jihadi in the city.
I'm hoping the authorities had the smarts to video everyone who was there.
It could come in might handy in the future.
Oh, those crazy misguided peace activists!
Just accidental tourists at one of the worst anti-semetic, pro terrorist cross over gatherings seen yet, in Egypt - May 2007..
So dawg, does Jeff Clark not have huge sway with the peace activists? Does the Toronto 'peace' coalition not have a very big say in the actions of its members and others in similar groups across Canada?
Do you not agree that Jeff Clark should be held accountable for his treasonous actions?
I too believe in fact..i too believe actions speak louder than words..there no longer can be any doubt that the leftist peace radicals are now in bed with the Islamists.
Those peace marches back in the 70 and 80's that I used to go to, had plenty of communist sympathisers, who at least thought the Soviet Union and Cuba and China were better places than the U.S. And Dawg, yes I agree that not all critics of Israel are antisemites, by why are all critics of Muslim countries Islamaphobes?
Posted at 2008-04-03 19:03:55 [PermaLink]Dr. Dawg
"Have a big peace demo and all kinds of people show up, with all kinds of axes to grind. That doesn't mean that everyone knows each other, and certainly doesn't mean that they agree with each other, ..."
AND
"but the peace movement is the usual diverse bunch, most of whom want, well, peace."
If these peace demonstrations are comprised of diverse groups with differing agendas, how do you know that they (as a whole) are a peace movement?
As I pointed out earlier, if it was peace they had in common, we'd see a more diverse representation of the TARGETS for protest given world events.
Instead, they seem to have a common agenda with a limited choice of targets.
Diametrically opposite.
"Personally I've never thought of pompous windbags like George Galloway as left-wing, and there are a couple of other equally noisome loons around as well,...."
Dawg, you don't consider Galloway left of center because you can't wish away his blatantly pro-Islamist ideology, so the only option available to you is to change his team sweater. I recall you pulling the same stunt in a comment relating to ArtDecco, the flaming anti-Semite commenter at McClelland's blog. As a long time reader of " His Blawg," I can vouch for the fact that this guy is left of Lenin, but you tried to characterize him as a non-Leftist, because you couldn't force yourself to countenance the fact that your side contains people of his ilk.
"....but the peace movement is the usual diverse bunch, most of whom want, well, peace."
No they don't. They want the west's militaries confined to barracks. What happens as a consequence of that, they don't much care. How many "peace" rallies during the Rwanda butchery can you come up with for me, Dawg? Where were the "peace" activists who marched by the hundreds of thousands against the UN sanctioned 1991 Gulf War to toss Saddam out of Kuwait? Where were those who took to the streets to protest the U.S. overthrow of the Taliban? Why didn't these so-called peaceniks feel compelled to march in protest and demand western military intervention in Rwanda? I'll tell you why. They already had what they wanted. Western armies weren't in there fighting. Why would they ask for something that is so abhorrent to them?
"And, just as I rejected similar claims forty years ago, I reject the notion that the leadership is some cloak-and-dagger Islamist operation manipulating the rubes. That kind of conspirazoid thinking is uncomfortably close to Trutherism, and I simply don't buy it."
One doesn't have to believe that the "peace" movement's leadership is populated with closet Islamists, in order to see that the two have made common cause. As I've said many times before, radical Leftist ideologues and Islamist fundamentalists share common enemies. Both groups hate the United States, Israel, and aspects of western society, especially organized Christian religion and market Capitalism.
It's natural, then, for the "peace movement," populated as it is by hard Leftists, to not only refrain from criticizing the murderous, autocratic, misogynist, medieval Islamists, but to join with them in confronting their shared enemies. This is classic " The enemy of enemy is my friend," stuff.
That's why you rarely see Leftist media columnists and bloggers devote space to criticism of the despicable acts committed daily by Muslim extremists around the world, be they bombings and beheadings in Iraq and Afghanistan, or honour killings throughout Muslim society. It isn't that Leftists approve of this stuff, it's just that they hate other things so much more.
As I see it, that's where the fundamental difference lies betwen those of us on the Right, and those on the Left. It's human nature, no matter what one's ideology is, to focus our criticisms and protests against that which enrages us the most. In geopolitical matters, for us conservatives, radical Islam is the enemy, and the most dangerous threat to the well being of a large percentage of the world's population. For you and your comrades on the far Left, Dawg, you are provoked and angered in the extreme by the foreign policies of the United States and Israel. There simply isn't any rage left over for the monsters of al Qaeda.
Dr. Dawg, oncologist:
"Well, yes, that benign little polyp has penetrated your gut wall and fixed itself to your pelvis, but you tend to see that. I'm not too worried about those nodes; I've never found them to have anything to do with this part of the body. That mass in your liver and spot on your lung? Just isolated instances. Nothing to be concerned about."
Come on, Dawg. The constant knee-jerk Israel-bashing is evident throughout the "peace" movement; same with the tolerance of and occasional bridge-building with those with very regressive social views, so is the transformation of third world reactionaries into heroes of national liberation. (Recall what yer hero Foucault had to say about Khomeini -- represented the perfectly unified collecive will of the Iranian people. Echoes of one of the talks at this year's York region "celebration" (where one James Clark was speaking) of the Iranian revolution: "President Ahmedinejad: the embodiment of a Sincere Muslim".) It's too pervasive and deeply entrenched to brush away or soft-pedal. The relationship of the so-called peace movement's leaders to peace is like that of Castro apologists to democracy.
Argh. Just realised that my initial 'oncologist' jab at Dawg was insensitive as can be. Didn't think that one all the way through when I typed it.
I'm sorry, John. I apologise fully.
IK
Many thanks, Ian, for that. Apologies accepted.
I think the issues that have been brought up in this discussion are well worth reflecting upon. I believe that there's a considerable distortion here of what our values and orientation are. although we are not above criticism. But it's a very prevalent view of what we're about.
I would rather post something at this point at my own place later today. The issue is frankly bigger than what the walls of a combox will contain by way of a response to all of the above. Participants here are welcome over there to continue the discussion, but I'll reference this thread over there.
"The issue is frankly bigger than what the walls of a combox will contain by way of a response to all of the above. "
Translation: "I need time to squeeze out enough squid ink required for the post-modern nuance."
"Back in the day, anyone marching for peace was called a 'Communist'"
The organizers were communists. The marchers were useful idiots. Come to think of it, not much has changed. [External Link]
I quite understand that Eights doesn't care for nuance.
Bruce states:
"The organizers were communists."
I'm calling bullshit on this one. I was there. But come to think of it, knowing Bruce, we might have to redefine the word "communist" to suit his charge. "Communist" = feminist, social democrat or just plain Democrat, hippie, environmentalist, etc.
There, now, *that* works. Sorry, Bruce, I withdraw the "bullshit" charge. Still sorry you guys got your ass kicked in Vietnam?
My response is up, incidentally:
[External Link]
"Still sorry you guys got your ass kicked in Vietnam?"
The millions of dead and displaced persons because of the Communist takeovers of Vietnam and Cambodia would no doubt thank you for your efforts -- if they had lived.
Okay, let's put it this way. Which Cold War era "peace movements" in the west were not communist organized?
And I mean "communist" as in dominated or controlled by the Societ Union and/or China, as in the World Peace Council (established in Paris in 1949 as part of Joseph Stalin's "peace offensive"), International Institute for Peace, etc.
In the post-9/11 period, the major organizer of anti-war demonstrations in the west was International ANSWER, which is a Worker's World Party (WWP) front group. I think we can agree the WWP is "communist" within any meaningful definition of the word. [External Link]
"I quite understand that Eights doesn't care for nuance. "
Nuance, I understand. Squid ink, on the other hand...
And it wasn't the Communists who were napalming kids and dropping white phosphorous, "lazy dogs" and Agent Orange all over the place. Two million Vietnamese died in that war. But I'm sure their ghosts are grateful for your efforts.
I can only speak from the Canadian context. We used to think the Peace Council were a bunch of fuddy-duddies. Then (as now) the leaders of the anti-war movement were anything from Christian pacifist to social democrat, from Trotsyist to CP, from independents to anarchists, from liberals to whatever.
That damned Moscow gold never did materialize. Maybe now we can get some of those petrodollars.
"Two million Vietnamese died in that war."
The accepted number is about half of that, and, presumably, not all were killed by the U.S. The bulk of those who were killed by the U.S. were combatants, although upwards of 50,000 civilian North Vietnamese died in the bombings.
Upwards of 2 million Cambodians died in the killing fields. 165,000 Vietnamese died in Communist reeducation camps, many after being tortured. Tens of thousands of Vietnamese died on boats trying to escape the socialist paradise -- too bad they weren't closer to Miami like Castroland... There are more than 800,000 Vietnamese refugees, and descendants of refugees, currently living in the U.S. thanks to the peace movement.
"the leaders of the anti-war movement were anything from Christian pacifist to social democrat, from Trotsyist to CP, from independents to anarchists, from liberals to whatever"
The organization, then as now, came from communist front groups, although there has never been a shortage of useful idiots. Or is it your positon that International Answer is actually run by Quakers?
"That damned Moscow gold never did materialize"
Ask a criminal lawyer, always get payment up front.
"The organization, then as now, came from communist front groups"
Oh, horseshit. I knew a lot of those leaders (in Canada). Not a CPer in the lot. Lots of hard leftists, but that wasn't your claim.
"Estimates vary but the US puts the number of NVA and VC killed at about 1.1 million. The current Vietnamese government puts out the number of 2 million as its wartime losses both civilian and military."
[External Link]
There's lots more on this, but I don't want to relive the teach-in days.
Dr. Dawg,
"But I'm sure their ghosts are grateful for your efforts. "
And the far more numerous ghosts of communist atrocities are just as upset that more wasn't done to stop their executioners. Peace, at any cost, in these cases, is an opportunity cost.
This idea of speaking for the dead is fun. Thanks for introducing it into the debate.
Thanks, Dawg. You're a bigger man than I am.
Posted at 2008-04-05 03:17:33 [PermaLink]"the US puts the number of NVA and VC killed at about 1.1 million"
And political pressure on the U.S. military in Vietnam led to grossly inflated body counts, which cost the Pentagon credibility they have never been able to repair. Likewise the communist government in Vietnam has reasons to significantly inflate casualty statistics from the war. The statistics they currently use are of recent origin released in a press release to AFP in 1995 -- decades after the war ended.
Bruce
"which cost the Pentagon credibility they have never been able to repair."
and which they don't seem too worried about if the antics of those recently in charge at the Pentagon are to taken as an example of its existing policy makers. If ever there was a government agency anywhere with trust or image problem it's the Pentagon.
"The organization, then as now, came from communist front groups, although there has never been a shortage of useful idiots. Or is it your positon that International Answer is actually run by Quakers?"
Hi Bruce, just popping in to tell you that RESIST, and other anti-war groups in the US, were not run by Communists. In fact, when LBJ told the CIA to find the proof that the communists were running the anti-war movement, they told him they found nothing.
This discussion board is absolutely hilarious. I'm half expecting some one to talk about how Muslims are trying to sap and impurify our bodily fluids.
"anti-war groups in the US, were not run by Communists"
Journalist Max Friedman infiltrated the Mobe during the Vietnam War and testified to Congress about his experiences. This is from an interview he gave:
"SWETT: So what we have here in effect are a very small number, no more than two or three, major groups controlling large chunks of the anti-war movement basically battling for supremacy. Is that essentially an accurate picture?
FRIEDMAN: Yes, and this happened not only in the anti-war movement but on the campuses where the WEB DuBois Club was formed by the Communist Party. They tried to take over the student movements there, and they got ousted by the Trotskyites who formed a student mobilization committee to end the war in Vietnam.
The Trots had more people on campus, four more chapters, that just took over everything and threw the Communist Party out.
So the Communist Party became a minor factor on the campus, and when you look at the issues of the Student Mobilizer, you look at all the names of the people who led the chapters, and they were all Young Socialist Alliance members or Socialist Workers Party members." [External Link]
The Young Socialist Alliance and Socialist Workers Party were Trotskyist. The Socialist Workers Party gained control of the Student Mobilization Committee Against the War in Vietnam, the National Peace Action Coalition, and other groups.
The 1996 Sopcilist Workers Party candidate for President of the U.S., James Harris, was part of the Mobe's National Staff.
So, if your point is the Mobe wasn't run by Moscow, you're correct. But to assert that it wasn't run by communists is incorrect.
And if you look at the pre-Vietnam "peace" movement you can't even make that distinction.
Bruce, the comedy never ends with you. You're going to use the testimony of one crackpot journalist to prove that communists ran the anti-war movement in the 1960s. In that case, name all the Communist leaders of the following organizations:
Students for a Democratic Society
Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee
The Quakers
Vietnam Veterans Against the War
NAACP
Or how about these guys... were they communist dupes also?... [External Link]
"The first protests against U.S. involvement in Vietnam were in 1945, when United States Merchant Marine sailors condemned the U.S. government for the use of U.S. merchant ships to transport French troops to "subjugate the native population" of Vietnam; these protesters opposed the "recolonization" of Vietnam."
I guess the US merchant marines were all 5th columnist traitors, just like Martin Lurther King Jr.
Of course, pointing out the fact that you are wrong about the anti-war movement isn't sufficient. It is also important to point out, that the war was, in fact, wrong and immoral, and that the U.S. should not have been in that country in the first place. The fact that some of the people pointing that out were communists, only proves that people have a tendancy to apply a moral double-standard when dealing with atrocities carried out by approved enemies. America bombs Vietnam, bad. Soviet Union crushes Czech dissidents, not bad. The commies were hypocrites and cynical, much like the neocons in the US. Of course, American Communists didn't command over half the worlds armed forces.
"name all the Communist leaders of the following organizations:
Students for a Democratic Society..."
You mean the Weather Underground?
It is not my position that non-communist groups were not part of the anti-war movement, merely that the leadership and organization was communist. David Horowitz, former editor of Ramparts, notes that there were two major orgaizing forces behind the antiwar movement, "the People’s Coalition for Peace and Justice ... run by the American Communist Party," and "the MOBE, which was run by the Trotskyist Communist Party." [External Link]
On a more personal note, if you can't be civil this conversation is ended.
"On a more personal note, if you can't be civil this conversation is ended."
And if you can't be factually correct about things that are fairly easy to learn about, the laughter shall continue.
For example, the Weather Underground was a splinter group of a few SDS members. Furthermore, they were not communists. In fact, if you bothered to actually learn about those movements, you'd know that the communists despised the "new left" terrorist groups of the 1970s: Action Direct, Baader-Meinhoff, Red Bridges, Tupamaros, etc. Their opposition was due to largely self-serving reasons (communists oppose any violence that they don't directly control), but they despised them none the less. And the Weather Underground were not leaders of the anti-war movement, sorry to inform you.
"merely that the leadership and organization was communist"
I listed a number of organizations that actively opposed the war, all the back to 1945 and asked you to list their communist leadership. And sorry, but not all anti-war leadership came from the groups that Horowitz mentions. In fact, you'd probably be surprised at how disorganized are a lot of organizations that do this kind of work.
Again, if you knew any of the history of the Communist Party in North America, you'd know that they stopped being a serious force, by the early 1950s in Canada, and much earlier than that in the United States. They couldn't organize a lemonaide stand, let alone a major demonstration.
If there's anything worse than a sarcastic troll, it's an ignorant sarcastic troll.
If you actually read my comments, which you now criticize, you would realize that I was not primarily referring to the CPUSA, nor are communists limited to membership in the CPUSA.
And simply because the new and old left often did not get along does not mean the new left weren't communists. The Red Brigades, Baader-Meinhoff, etc., clearly were - as was the Weather Uderground.
You assert that, "the Weather Underground was a splinter group of a few SDS members."
According to the Wikipedia (and other sources), "Weatherman contained the vast majority of former SDS National Committee members, including Mark Rudd, David Gilbert and Bernadine Dohrn."
They weren't just members, they were the leaders. The SDS split ocurred because the National Office split with the Progressive Labor Party, which, according to the Wikipedia, is a transnational communist party.
In other words, the leadership and organization were communist, even though most of the members probably were not.
"you would realize that I was not primarily referring to the CPUSA, nor are communists limited to membership in the CPUSA."
You know, one useful way to determine whether or not they were communists is find out what Communists actually thought of them. Here's an instructive quote:
"The anarchist prophets of the ‘propaganda of the deed’ can argue all they want about the elevating and stimulating influence of terrorist acts on the masses. Theoretical considerations and political experience prove otherwise. The more ‘effective’ the terrorist acts, the greater their impact, the more they reduce the interest of the masses in self-organisation and self-education. But the smoke from the confusion clears away, the panic disappears, the successor of the murdered minister makes his appearance, life again settles into the old rut, the wheel of capitalist exploitation turns as before; only the police repression grows more savage and brazen"
- Leon Trotsky
[External Link]
But enough of this, the point of this discussion was for you to prove that the anti-Vietnam war movement was lead by communists. Apart from showing that you don't know anything about who led the anti-War movement, or the difference between the new and old left, you've demonstrated nothing. Except that a communist is whatever you say it is.
Nice work Bruce.