-Caveat Lector- >From TheNewAustralian http://www.newaus.com.au/ > Return to The New Australian > > > The corruption of political terminology . . . by the Left > > > By Charles Murton, Assistant Editor > > > No. 133, 13-19 September 1999 > > 'The New Australian' has received a letter from one of its long standing > readers on the left, suggesting, in a friendly fashion, that we have > used incorrect terminology in describing states such as the USSR and > China as 'socialist'. It also suggests that there has been a general > misuse of terminology amongst those opposed to Marxism, such as the > Nazis naming themselves as a 'socialist' party. Since this was a well > expressed, well mannered enquiry, and not a mindless shriek of hate > (which is what we chiefly get from the left), I am answering it in some > depth. > > It is true that political nomenclature is full of the most bizarre > inversions and misunderstandings, most of them originating on the left, > as it happens. Indeed, the very word 'left', now applied to Marx-based > philosophies, originally referred to those who believed in individual > rights (including property rights) and minimal government. In the same > way, genuine liberals, those who believe in these same things, are now > called otherwise in the United States, whereas the word 'liberal' has > been corrupted by the left in the USA to mean a person who believes in > widespread coercive intervention by the state. > > The usual tendency of the left this century has been to call a society > 'socialist' if: (a) it follows patterns sympathetic to Marx's ideas, > and; (b) the fiction can be maintained, no matter how tenuously, that it > is successful. When it is exposed in such a way that even its most > ardent supporters cannot ignore the truth, it is then called by some > other name to protect the hallowed name of socialism. I was raised in a > left wing family, and have more than forty years of conscious experience > of this, so I think I can speak with some authority. > > While those on the ideological left still clung to the idea that the > USSR was a workers' paradise — and for most this was right up to the > 1970s — then the USSR was happily described as socialist, not by the > British or Australian Labour Parties' enemies, but by their strongest > supporters. And in doing so, they were following the formal nomenclature > of Marxism — Leninism: in the evolution towards the perfect society, a > totalitarian state must be imposed at first, and the people be forced by > government sanctioned violence into a socialist way of life, and then, > over a few generations, a new type of human being will evolve, and the > state will whither away because it is no longer necessary, and you will > have communism. Thus communism was seen as the last stage of perfection, > the Arcadian end of history, while socialism was seen as the > intermediate stage of totalitarian control. > > In this sense, the use of the word 'socialist' by the 'New Australian' > to describe the loathsome Marxian slave states that have besmirched the > world since 1917 is quite correct, even in socialist terms. However, as > I stated above, when the truth about some Marxist state is revealed such > that not even the left can get away with their usual lies, then some > alternative word must suddenly be plucked out of the air to distance the > sacred word 'socialist' from the spectacle of the massive, > poverty-stricken slave pen now made visible to even the most obtuse. I > recall that in the 1960s, when it became discussible on the left that > the USSR wasn't quite the paradise it was meant to be, it was described > as not socialist, but as an example of 'state capitalism'. This > terminology was a ridiculous oxymoron, a contradiction as absurd as, > say, a square circle. I used to have great fun asking left wing > acquaintances to define it, and never found one who could. > > Renaming socialist states as 'capitalist' continued well into the 70s. > In my extensive library of left wing books and literature I have two > editions of the same book on socialism. In the first, published in 1976, > Kampuchea and its leader are described as a great experiment in > socialism. In the second edition, published in 1979, Pol Pot is > described as a 'capitalist'. …A capitalist, mind you, who emptied the > cities, forced the whole population into primitive collective > agriculture, totally forbade the use of money, and murdered a third of > the population for individualist crimes (e.g. wearing a colored shirt, > or glasses, both of which were capital offenses in Kampuchea). Not even > Marx himself would fall for such idiocy. > > It appears that fashions have changed since those days, to judge by the > letter. Now, if a 'socialist paradise' was at some time exposed as a > vast coffin of Marxist totalitarian evil, then it is called, in > retrospect, not capitalist, but communist(!) Which just goes to show > what a vast amount of territory the left covers in its abuse of > language. > > There are other examples. When the USSR began to deconstruct, so to > speak, it became fashionable on the left (especially amongst journalists > and teachers, the vast majority of whom simply do as they are told by > the left), to refer to those in the Soviet Union who wanted to preserve > Marxist-Leninist authoritarian statism as 'the right', and those who > wanted to move towards greater private ownership, entrepreneurial > activity, and free production and exchange as 'the left'. That was worse > than incorrect, it was morally obscene — as if the Nazis had been > characterized in the media, and in school and university discourse, as > the Jewish Defence League. Nor could such a weaselish misuse of language > be defended by claiming that the perpetrators were simply returning to > the original meaning of the word 'left' — too much time had passed for > that. > > The writer of the letter also suggests that it was false for the Nazis > to describe themselves as 'socialist', and here I entirely disagree. > Firstly, it needs to be stated that there is one absolutely fundamental > division in political philosophy: those who believe that people should > be free to follow their own unfettered desires in a context of safety > and freedom (i.e. with a limited government confined to the protection > of life and property); and those who believe people should be ruled by > coercive violence by the state, for their own good. The second > philosophical strand began with Plato's 'Republic', the first outline of > a totalitarian state. All subsequent totalitarian forms are just > variants of Plato's vision, and the enslaving and brutalizing thugs in > charge inevitable see themselves as wise and cultivated 'philosopher > kings' (and queens these days I guess). > > From the point of view of classical liberals such as Gerry Jackson or > me, Marxism and Nazism are all but indistinguishable. Both are > anti-individualist, thoroughly collectivized forms of state sponsored > terror. Of course, Nazism was not Marxist, but the word 'socialist' does > not just mean Marxist: it can mean collectivist in a wider sense. > > One could go further. In its early days, in fact, Nazism did have a > Marxist strand of thought. The group represented by Ernst Rohm was > committed to a workers' revolution, the total destruction of private > property, and full nationalization in the Bolshevik manner. In the late > 1920s nothing was easier than to convert a Marxist into a Nazi, or vice > versa. It was only after the 'Night of the Long Knives' that Nazism > could be seen as fully differentiable from Marxism, although as I have > stated, it was still just a variant of totalitarianism — and both were > the opposite of the political and economic freedom that this publication > promotes. > > Return to The New Australian > Return to The New Australian > > > Anthony Lewis damns America, > with a little help from The Age > > > By Gerard Jackson > No. 133, 13-19 September 1999 > > The tragedy that is called East Timor demonstrates both the limits of US power > and the moral bankruptcy of the Left. Engaging in his favourite pastime of moral > posturing, the left-wing Anthony Lewis used The New York Times (republished in > the Melbourne Age) to berate Henry Kissinger, damning him for having visited > "the tyrant ruler of Indonesia, President Suharto, in December 1975." Of course, > he also damned him for supporting Pinochet and the Shah of Persia. That America > could not have done anything to prevent the 1975 Indonesian takeover of East > Timor was ignored by Lewis, just as he ignored the embarrassing fact that Gough > Whitlam, Australia's then-left-wing prime minister, gave Indonesia the go-ahead > for the invasion. This is the same Australian government that supported Hanoi's > conquest of South Vietnam. But in the eyes of the Left, only America is guilty. > > Lewis argues that America should speak out. Quite right — but not hypocrites > like Lewis who do not possess a shred of moral authority. I have not forgotten > that Lewis fully supported Hanoi's blood-drenched war against South Vietnam and > that he did all he could to advance the cause of the communist North. I can > still recall Lewis' snivelling rationalisations for abandoning the South East > Asia to "tyrant" rulers. In his New York Times column (17/3/75) Lewis wrote: > "What future possibility could be more terrible than the reality of what is > happening to Cambodia now?" The answer, of course, was Pol Pot. In fact, the > loathsome Lewis made quite a reputation for belittling warnings by well-informed > US officials that a Communist victory would result in massacres. > > To the likes of Lewis, as I have continually pointed out, what matters is not > the crime but who commits it. Therefore human rights violations by right-wing > regimes are unequivocally condemned, while those committed by Marxist regimes > are either overlooked, downplayed or rationalised away. This is why Lewis and > his ilk are so vocal in condemning Indonesia but not communist Vietnam, Cuba or > North Vietnam. > > Lewis referred to Pinochet and the Shah. That the Marxist Allende was working to > install a Cuban-style totalitarian state on Chile was ignored by Lewis. This is > not surprising when we consider that Lewis supported Allende. He also ignored > the fact that Pinochet's arrest is a breach of international law. But since when > did most Leftists give any regard to the rule of law? Allende never did. That > the same people who arranged Pinochet's arrest also support Castro, as does > Lewis, is not something he thought worthy of comment. And why should he when he > has East Timor as an excuse to pass moral judgement on his country. > > That what followed the Shah's downfall was far more wretched than anything he > ever inflicted on the country was something that Lewis chose to ignore. Also > ignored was the role the likes of Lewis played, albeit indirectly, in the Shah's > fall.1 And this bring us to the Washington-based Institute for Policy Studies. > > The IPS, as it is usually called, is notorious for its anti-American activities > and its support for left-wing totalitarian regimes. From its very inception, > this outfit completely supported the Soviet Union, rationalising its aggression > and attacking American efforts to contain it aggression. It supported North > Vietnam's assault on the South; it supported the mullahs against the Shah; it > supported Castrao — and still does, it supported Allende's attempt to destroy > Chilean democracy; it supported the Marxist-Leninist Sandinistas and the > communist guerrillas in El Salvadore. If the regime was left-wing and > anti-American it had the support of the IPS. And who is closely linked to the > IPS? Why, Anthony Lewis. > > So close are these links that pressure from Peter and Cora Weiss brought about > the appointment of Lewis as Samuel Rubin Fellow for the 1982-3 academic year at > Columbia University. The university had been endowed with $1 million dollars to > establish the left-wing Samuel Rubin Program for the Advancement of Liberty and > Equality Through Law. Cora Rubin Weiss is the daughter of Samuel Rubin,2 and her > husband, Peter Weiss, was the chairman of the IPS board of trustees. Samuel > Rubin2 was a registered member of the CPUSA (Communist Party of the United > States of America) and a close friend of Armand Hammer, who in turn was a friend > of Lenin and who remained a strong supporter of the Soviet Union throughout his > life. Hammer's father, Julius, helped found the CPUSA which was under the direct > control of Moscow, as was Julius. > > Therefore it is not surprising that Lewis's columns reflect the IPS's Marxist > view of the world. In an op-ed piece (New York Times 10/10/83) he argued > strongly (as does the IPS) that the US should not resist communist revolution or > subversion, particularly in Central America . He even argued that "American > interests would have been better served in Vietnam and China by living with > those Communist governments." Now the magnitude of these regimes' crimes vastly > exceed anything Indonesia has done — but did he call for the US to "live" with > Indonesia? Of course not. Indonesia is 'right-wing' and anti-communist while > Hanoi is a blood-soaked Marxist dictatorship. Once again, with the Left it is > not the crime that counts but who commits it.3 > > These are not errors of judgement, they are expressions of an ideological > commitment to socialist regimes, no matter how murderous. In 1981 the KGB used > Larry Birns of the COHA4 to release a forged document called Dissent Paper on El > Salvador and Central America. It was widely disseminated by the IPS (surprise, > surprise) and was supposed to have been written by dissatisfied people from the > National Security Agency, the CIA and the State and Defense Departments. The > State Department swiftly produced report on the document that exposed it as a > forgery and completely demolished it contents. Even so, Lewis still used his > column to promote the forgery — thus convincing thousands that it was a genuine > US government document. He also used it to apologise for the Soviet Union after > it shot down Korean Airlines flight 007, arguing that "Conceivably Soviet radar > technicians could have mistaken it as an intelligence-gathering aircraft." That > the aircraft had been visually identified by the pilot who later shot is down > was another inconvenient fact that Lewis neglected to tell his readers. > > Lewis has a lot of blood on his hands. Too much for him to pass moral judgements > on America or even Indonesia. Unfortunately, Lewis is typical of that species of > ideologically motivated journalists that sees life through a left-wing prism. So > next time our American readers read a paper or listen to the likes of Dan Rather > and Cokie Roberts, they should think Anthony Lewis. > > 1After his fall the Shah pointed the finger at the IPS, accusing it of having > helped sway congressional and media opinion against him. > > 2Rubin acquired his wealth through cheating. The Fabergé family had been > jewelers to the Tsars and were famous for creating the Fabergé eggs. The family > jewelry talent was considered by some to be peerless. After the revolution they > were forced to flee Russia. They later set up shop in Paris and Geneva. It was > later that they learnt that Sam Rubin had stolen the family trade name so he > could trade on its reputation. Unfortunately Rubin was able to greatly outspend > the Fabergés, forcing them to into a $25,000 settlement in 1951. And that was > how Red Rubin made his millions. > > The family was outraged when they discovered that Rubin had used the proceeds > from their name to bankroll communist organisations. A. C. Fabergé later said: > "My family took part in the fight against the Bolshevik takeover. My father > Alexander Fabergé participated in the so-called officers' revolt of Moscow in > the early days of the revolution, while two of Agathon Fabergé's sons fought > with Yudenich's White Army." > > 3Ramona Koval is another sickening example of left-wing hypocrisy. In a > reference to East Timor she announced that the "democracies . . . must meet > force with force." When the US did this in South East Asia, Koval took to the > streets in support of communist aggression, something she still brags about. > Hanoi, which she supported and still does, stands guilty of the most vile > crimes. But Koval has never condemned its barbarity. Another example of the > general left-wing view that it's not the crime that counts but who commits it. > > 4Birns is a member of the IPS and a noted supporter of Castro. He also had > strong links with the Marxist Allende and with Orlando Letelier, Allende's > son-in-law and a Cuban agent who also acted for the KGB. It was Letelier, also > actively linked to the IPS, who helped Birns set up the pro-Soviet COHA (Council > on Hemispheric Affairs). > > Visit The Media Wall of Shame contains scores of articles exposing media > dishonesty and hypocrisy. > > Return to The New Australian A<>E<>R ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The only real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes but in having new eyes. -Marcel Proust + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your common sense." --Buddha + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + A merely fallen enemy may rise again, but the reconciled one is truly vanquished. -Johann Christoph Schiller, German Writer (1759-1805) + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that prevents us from living freely and nobly. -Bertrand Russell + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + "Everyone has the right...to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." Universal Declaration of Human Rights + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + "Always do sober what you said you'd do drunk. That will teach you to keep your mouth shut." --- Ernest Hemingway + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Forwarded as information only; no endorsement to be presumed + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without charge or profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this type of information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
