Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DanaC
Out of interest, I'd also quite like to know why UG keeps categorising tw as a 'communist'? Is it because he disagrees with current governmental policy and ideology?
|
I don't think
current has anything to do with it. His views on Vietnam coincide precisely with what was put out during the Vietnam era from Moscow and Peking (we didn't start writing it Beijing until well after the Vietnam war) in the Sixties, when the communists did a hell of a job of marketing their slavemaking to an audience of American dupes -- war of national liberation, my bilobate ass. Liberations don't drive a quarter million people out to sea on rafts, or from the North into the South when Indochina was partitioned. Compare what tw writes to what the Soviets used to put out -- my, he's faithful to the Sovs: invokes the same boogeymen, picks on Israel, et cetera. I don't know where he's ever disagreed with a view the Soviets held. This is what tells me the guy's a commie, and he doesn't deny it, either -- the nearest he came to any rebuttal was a limp citing of
The Pentagon Papers once. Precisely once.
Quote:
|
America has many people who agree with Bush and many people who disagree with Bush. Are the people who disagree with Bush all communists then? Are they all anti-democracy? Isn't that something of a contradiction in terms?
|
Not all of these would be communists, no -- tw is unusual only in his persistent riding of the wave of the past. However, they conspicuously lack an understanding of the best idea to come out of the neocon philosophy -- it isn't really a movement so much as an area of likemindedness -- that a democratic republic is going to prosper best in a world full of other democratic republics rather than various brands of dictatorships, autarchies, and class-ridden or caste-ridden societies. The
ew, it's neocons set are terribly weak on democracy, being not committed enough to it to see it prevail. These are feeble successors to "The Greatest Generation." Whatever their manifold faults (which I stipulate, and move on), those people knew what to do about totalitarianism, though it took totalitarianism plus imperialism to put them into action removing them. The
ews seek any excuse at all not to win, which I think very shortsighted of them. They need to remember what McArthur said about substitutes for victory. Allow me to add that the usual substitute for victory is to fight a larger, more ruinous war later on. I haven't seen much war myself -- just an expedition or two, with medals to show for it -- but this strikes me as a bad thing.
The reason I am committed to libertarian democracy is that I've been in contention directly against collectivist totalitarianism before, and in that time got around the world and had a look at some un-democracies. I concluded that they suck.
There are non-communists on this board who fight with me all the time. Understanding this, I don't call them a pack of commies, but instead, about everything else in The Devil's Dictionary. Usually I harp on their want of wisdom. No, tw is about the only communist I can say I know personally. Most of the rest of the people who find me hard to take seem left of center, but are not as toys-in-the-attic out-there as tw. I do not, however, trust these to be any good at keeping the Republic.
P.S.: Hippikos, consult the "Made Up Words" thread for a telling remark or two anent "anyways."