At what point did Communism become public enemy #1? (colonization, Russians, origin)

[ovcatto]

Originally Posted by erasure

"Stop" what?
I am talking about those who already came to power in Kruchev's time.

I've ignored this line of argument for the most part but I can't stay out any longer. Your line of argument is really off the mark. First Trotsky and then Stalin opposed the the New Economic Policy, Stalin just used the NEP as a tool to dethrone Troksky and assume the reigns of the party.

Second, the key characteristic of any successors to Stalin would be the simple fact that they survived his regime, whether they intellectuals or loyal workers who have risen through the ranks of the party. If you examine each and every member of the Politburo from the 1917 up and through the Khrushchev error you would be hard pressed to demonstrate any significant educational differences between revolutionary and post revolution educational achievement.

[mofford]

I liked GS answer about the palmer raids for being the first peak, easy to forget about that period. And I agree with NJ and Ovcatto about events in '48 and '49 being near the final peak of anti communist sentiment in the US, but not quite. I think it got worse going into the early 50's until Stalin dies in '53.

Nobody mentioned Alger Hiss in '47 and the spy rings that were exposed later after Russia got the bomb. Much was unfolding to fuel public paranoia, going into the early 50's, such as the Rosenberg trial and other spies exposed. By '51 the public was well aware that Soviet spies were recruiting Americans on the home front to spy for the USSR, or use their positions in Hollywood, the newspapers, the ranks at the department of defense....whomever, recruited for Russian intelligence/ ambitions.

Let's not forget about the Korean War beginning in 1950, complete with Russian Migs and hoards of Red Chinese bearing down on our troops. Throw in Edward Teller with his H-bomb, ICBM's and those new fallout shelters for your home, and I would say the real peak was '53 or later, after Stalin died.

The McCarthy Hearings in '54 helped cool things off a bit, but another peak in '57 with sputnik, and another one in '61 with cuban missile crisis. By Vietnam the effect of people watching CBS for long enough had changed attitudes, and all those dead soldiers coming home did not motivate people to hunt communists like they used to. Too many distractions on the home front.

Kinda sad the way commie hunting had gone out of fashion, I have always found that period of our history rather comforting, clearing the air, a good wholesome sterilizing of America from undesirable foreign elements......nice. Wish I was old enough to have seen it, and the rigged game shows with cigarette ads on TV, good asbestos brake pads, the Ed Sulivan Show. I missed all the good stuff !

[ovcatto]

Originally Posted by mofford

I have always found that period of our history rather comforting, clearing the air, a good wholesome sterilizing of America from undesirable foreign elements......nice.

Most of the elements weren't foreign nor was the sterilization of much comfort to those falsely accused whose lives were destroyed by the witch hunts. Otherwise you had a fairly good post.

[erasure]

Originally Posted by ovcatto

I've ignored this line of argument for the most part but I can't stay out any longer. Your line of argument is really off the mark. First Trotsky and then Stalin opposed the the New Economic Policy, Stalin just used the NEP as a tool to dethrone Troksky and assume the reigns of the party.

Very well, don't "stay out" any longer.
I don't know much about Trotsky (I was simply never interested about him,) but I can understand in a way where Stalin was coming from, opposing the New Economic Policy, and why by 1928 he replaced it with his Five year plan.
New Economic Policy as you know it was proposed by Lenin, who was from the original "revolutionary generation," with his roots in Russian intelligentsia of Tzarist times ( as many of his peers were,) and that's what I meant when I've said that they were of "more flexible mind" ( after all the NEP was discussed and agreed upon between them during the 10th congress from what I remember.) Therefore a man who was at the helm of Socialist revolution didn't mind to come up with idea of "state capitalism" and reinstatement of private businesses, if that could help to fix economy.
Now 1921 ( when NEP came in place) and 1928 (when Stalin abolished it and replaced it with his plans) were already different times. By 1928 Stalin could see all the positive and negative results that NEP brought to the country, and the negatives he saw were clearly interfering with his vision, big part of which was a rapid industrialization. (As the history proved it, he was right about the rapid industrialization part.) So basically Stalin's management in this respect was more or less "crisis management" of the country, and crisis management can't be "flexible" by definition the way I see it.
However after the WWII there was no need any longer for the "crisis management, and Soviet leaders had hundred chances to turn to New Economic Policy once again, in order to help the stagnating economy, yet they were stubbornly refusing to do it, since their mind was already rigidly set the way the Soviet propaganda was dictating them for many years.

Second, the key characteristic of any successors to Stalin would be the simple fact that they survived his regime, whether they intellectuals or loyal workers who have risen through the ranks of the party. If you examine each and every member of the Politburo from the 1917 up and through the Khrushchev error you would be hard pressed to demonstrate any significant educational differences between revolutionary and post revolution educational achievement.

The older generation ( born twenty-thirty years before the revolution) was inseparable part of tzarist Russia, and that means the society they were born in, was inseparable part of the global community - European community in particular. These people traveled abroad, they studied abroad, they lived abroad, and they were making their conclusions on a broad basis of knowledge and comparison that this access was giving them. With another words, they were still people of global mind, albeit of Russian variety.
Now the next generation was already born fifteen - twenty years after them and they came of age around the revolution or later, when Russia was already separated from the global community and Russian minds were conditioned by the Soviet ideology. If you take in consideration that a lot of members of Politburo of Khrushev's times ( and later) came from the working class ( or peasant families,) that traditionally stand much further apart from the global community comparably to Russian intelligentsia ( call it "middle class" in this case if you wish,) then of course you can see that the education ( and mentality) of these people was much more rigid and limited comparably to a lot of their predecessors.

[Eugene L.]

Originally Posted by erasure

If you'd "learn" anything ( or should we say "study" ) in the USSR, not Russia, then you'd know right away what I am talking about. Don't confuse the USSR at the cusp of the 90ies, when it was already crumbling, with the USSR of earlier times.

I know and disagree. You talk about the generation of my parents and my teachers. They weren't 'a dumb peasants'. Well, "the history of the CPSU (b)" was pseudoscience, Soviet economists could not write 'the Economics'. But each system had its disadvantages, and you are unjustifiably putting down the other side.

Originally Posted by erasure

and 1928 (when Stalin abolished it and replaced it with his plans)

You see only the end of the line at 1928. However, the NEP closure began earlier, about 1926.

Originally Posted by erasure

big part of which was a rapid industrialization. (As the history proved it, he was right about the rapid industrialization part.)

Stop there. What is the 'rapid industrialization'? Did you know that the Soviet GDP was growing relatively slowly for industrialization time?
According to various estimates (P.Gregori, V.Melyantsev) Soviet GDP growth of 3-6%. For comparison: South-East Asia grew at a rate of 6-9%, Brazil exceeded 9%, USA and China had more than 10%.
In those days people didn't know that industrialization is a special period of country development.

Originally Posted by erasure

However after the WWII there was no need any longer for the "crisis management, and Soviet leaders had hundred chances to turn to New Economic Policy once again, in order to help the stagnating economy, yet they were stubbornly refusing to do it, since their mind was already rigidly set the way the Soviet propaganda was dictating them for many years.

At the 'cold war' this meant the political and ideological weakness. Internal competition for power did not allow it.

Originally Posted by erasure

The older generation ( born twenty-thirty years before the revolution) was inseparable part of tzarist Russia, and that means the society they were born in, was inseparable part of the global community - European community in particular. These people traveled abroad, they studied abroad, they lived abroad, and they were making their conclusions on a broad basis of knowledge and comparison that this access was giving them. With another words, they were still people of global mind, albeit of Russian variety.

Your opinion about all the people too well. Tell the pilots of '11 Sep' about the 'broad basis'...

[ovcatto]

Originally Posted by erasure

I don't know much about Trotsky (I was simply never interested about him,) but I can understand in a way where Stalin was coming from, opposing the New Economic Policy, and why by 1928 he replaced it with his Five year plan.

You can't begin to approach the subject of the New Economic Plan and the subsequent cessation of the policy without understanding the dynamics between the three most powerful members of the October Revolution, V.I. Lenin, Leon Trotsky and Joseph Stalin. Only Lenin superseded Trotsky as a Marxist theorist or revolutionary leader and many historian contended that Lenin chose Trotsky as his eventual successor, and if he had, the Soviet Union may have preceded China's third way by 60 years.

a man who was at the helm of Socialist revolution didn't mind to come up with idea of "state capitalism" and reinstatement of private businesses, if that could help to fix economy.

First the term used at the time was "War Communism" total state control over all areas of production while engaged in first a revolutionary struggle, a world war and the subsequent civil war. Lenin and Trotsky came to realize that after the victory over the White Russians that the policy of war communism was inefficient and causing great hardship throughout the country and this became highlighted by the Kronstadt rebellion. Sailors at the Kronstadt naval base who had been the Revolutions most stalwart fighters. With their revolt both Lenin and Trotsky supported by the Left Opposition.

Now 1921 ( when NEP came in place) and 1928 (when Stalin abolished it and replaced it with his plans) were already different times. By 1928 Stalin could see all the positive and negative results that NEP brought to the country, and the negatives he saw were clearly interfering with his vision, big part of which was a rapid industrialization. (As the history proved it, he was right about the rapid industrialization part.) So basically Stalin's management in this respect was more or less "crisis management" of the country, and crisis management can't be "flexible" by definition the way I see it.

The actual problem was that the Stalinist believed that the NEP was a retreat from communism (an argument that would split the communist international into at least three factions and would eventually lead to the accusation that the Chinese Communist Party was no longer a communist party in fact when in actuality it was far more in line with Lenin that the professed Leninist). The Stalinist saw the rise of petite bourgeoisie (small business owners, professionals, and tradesmen) along with the rise of the Kulaks (small to middle sized farmers) as a total retreat from their Marxist principles which is ironic sense Marx himself argued that Russia had not achieved a the stage of capitalist development required for the transition to socialism. Stalins 5 year plan may have artificially elevated the state of industrialization it failed (as the Soviet Union would fail) to provide the kind of genuine worker control of production by replacing actual worker control with control or production in only in the name of the workers. In short the state replaced the capitalist but the workers remained outside of the actual ownership of their own efforts.

However after the WWII there was no need any longer for the "crisis management, and Soviet leaders had hundred chances to turn to New Economic Policy once again, in order to help the stagnating economy, yet they were stubbornly refusing to do it, since their mind was already rigidly set the way the Soviet propaganda was dictating them for many years.

Well understand this, the more "flexible minds" as you call them were exiled or murdered during Stalin's purges. Stalin was a barely educated tradesman who unlike who Trotsky let the Red Army and organized the people against the Czarist but instead led a brutal and murderous guerrilla bands that even raised the ire of the Bolsheviks. He was a strongman and believed in the total dictatorship of the Party. Those followed him into power, while less relatively less brutal, were all students of Stalins intolerance of any opposition to Party dictates.

The older generation ( born twenty-thirty years before the revolution) was inseparable part of tzarist Russia, and that means the society they were born in, was inseparable part of the global community - European community in particular.

I'm rushing to get this done...

This is a fundamental flaw in your argument, there was no generational divide. Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Felix Dzerzhinsky the whole lot of Soviet leaders and theorist were all active members in the October Revolution. what divided them was their philosophical outlook on what a Marxist state should look like what policies to follow to achieve it. The Soviet Union could have taken any number of paths had it not been for Stalin's unbridled brutality and absolute intolerance of any opposition - not that Lenin or Trotskly shied away from brutality in the Revolutionary era but unlike Lenin or Trotsky, Stalin was a brutal anti-intellectual peasant who could not destroy their nominal opponents through the force of their ideas.

[mofford]

Originally Posted by ovcatto

Most of the elements weren't foreign nor was the sterilization of much comfort to those falsely accused whose lives were destroyed by the witch hunts. Otherwise you had a fairly good post.

They mainly went after people whom had the type of job where they could influence people, not ordinary workers with communist leanings. It was not illegal to be a communist back then, and HUAC was not a Palmer Raid with mass deportations like 30 years earlier. But speaking of the Palmer Raids and Grandstanders post......he mentions J Edgar Hoover as if he may have been for the raids and deportations, but he did not, He voiced opposition to that policy at that time, feeling it was unconstitutional to deport them without due process. Later in 1941, he argued against the internment of Japanese Americans into camps during WW2. That policy was FDR, not Hoover.

Some of the people prosecuted by Roy Cohn did not deserve to be fired, but that was the employers decision to fire them. If Cohn or HUAC proved they had communist leanings, they deserved to be fired from sensitive positions. Separating Americans from UN-Americans.......good old HUAC, I wonder how Snowden would make out back in those days ?. Cohn was going too far when they started the soundbites like "We have found 1000 communists in our government" blah blah. The never found that many.....he was full of schitt and an over zealous prosecutor but did a good job on the Rosenbergs.

For those that lost their jobs, they did not have to kill themselves, they could have moved to the USSR and got jobs there, commie pay for commie work. Most of them were intelligent and able to find other work, or worked underground for several years. Oppenheimer losing his security clearance was very proper, communists getting kicked out of the movie business was quite logical. Bring back HUAC

That said, I did not really like the way McCarthy and Cohn went about their work, and neither did congress or the american people, as it turned out. That does not mean you have to throw out the baby with the bathwater. HUAC was needed and it helped to reduce Russian influence in the USA.

[erasure]

Originally Posted by Eugene L.

I know and disagree. You talk about the generation of my parents and my teachers. They weren't 'a dumb peasants'.

I didn't realize that your "teachers and parents" were members of Politburo.

Well, "the history of the CPSU (b)" was pseudoscience, Soviet economists could not write 'the Economics'. But each system had its disadvantages, and you are unjustifiably putting down the other side.

I do not necessarily "put down the other side;" in fact a see a lot of positive things in Soviet system for such country as Russia ( I underline it - for Russia, because it's a country that's culturally predisposed for "left ideas," and I've already mentioned why.) What I'm saying is that people who were in charge of the country in post-war times could have been smarter and less dogmatic, so they wouldn't have ended up with economic disaster on their hands.

You see only the end of the line at 1928. However, the NEP closure began earlier, about 1926.

Obviously, with Stalin's ideas in mind he wanted to put the end to it as soon as possible for his own reasons, and as history showed it, he was right about that one in that particular historical period.

Stop there. What is the 'rapid industrialization'? Did you know that the Soviet GDP was growing relatively slowly for industrialization time?
According to various estimates (P.Gregori, V.Melyantsev) Soviet GDP growth of 3-6%. For comparison: South-East Asia grew at a rate of 6-9%, Brazil exceeded 9%, USA and China had more than 10%.
In those days people didn't know that industrialization is a special period of country development.

I have no idea who "Gregori and Melyantsev" are, and quite honestly I am not interested in the latest attempts in Russia to re-write the history, stating that tzarist Russia was no different that any western country of that time, but Bolsheviks came out of nowhere and destroyed that beautiful country. And that Stalin' industrialization was nothing but result of inflated Soviet propaganda.
I prefer to deal with the fact that tzarist Russia was still a backward, 80% agrarian country that Bolsheviks inherited with all its ills. And when someone is trying to convince me that the US "GDP growth" was so much higher than Russia's at that time, it's enough to look at what Russia was economic wise at the turn of the century, comparably to the US.

At the 'cold war' this meant the political and ideological weakness. Internal competition for power did not allow it.

Oh yeah? So what happened to "internal competition" in Gorbachev's time, that he all of a sudden started tinkering with ideas of private enterprise?

Y

our opinion about all the people too well. Tell the pilots of '11 Sep' about the 'broad basis'...

What it has got to do with the "pilots" fer Christ sake,???

[erasure]

Originally Posted by ovcatto

You can't begin to approach the subject of the New Economic Plan and the subsequent cessation of the policy without understanding the dynamics between the three most powerful members of the October Revolution, V.I. Lenin, Leon Trotsky and Joseph Stalin. Only Lenin superseded Trotsky as a Marxist theorist or revolutionary leader and many historian contended that Lenin chose Trotsky as his eventual successor, and if he had, the Soviet Union may have preceded China's third way by 60 years.

Of course you can, while living in the USSR and knowing what took place in practical sense of it. It's not a rocket science, really...

First the term used at the time was "War Communism" total state control over all areas of production while engaged in first a revolutionary struggle, a world war and the subsequent civil war. Lenin and Trotsky came to realize that after the victory over the White Russians that the policy of war communism was inefficient and causing great hardship throughout the country and this became highlighted by the Kronstadt rebellion. Sailors at the Kronstadt naval base who had been the Revolutions most stalwart fighters. With their revolt both Lenin and Trotsky supported by the Left Opposition.

"Total state control" was always initial desirable result, but things just didn't work out this way, and as I've said the older generation was intelligent enough to figure it out and to try some changes.

The actual problem was that the Stalinist believed that the NEP was a retreat from communism ( The Stalinist saw the rise of petite bourgeoisie (small business owners, professionals, and tradesmen) along with the rise of the Kulaks (small to middle sized farmers) as a total retreat from their Marxist principles which is ironic sense Marx himself argued that Russia had not achieved a the stage of capitalist development required for the transition to socialism.

It was a retreat from communism and it was the rise of "petite bourgeoisie" and there was nothing ironic, really, that Stalin didn't want to see any of it, although it was going against Marx's teaching.
Marx's understanding was more or less correct for European countries, and Russia was lagging behind them in its development, so Stalin didn't feel like he had time for Russia to go through all the necessary cycles in order to "catch up" with them in a "natural way." He was dealing with technologically advanced West with the history of colonization, in the world where the motto "eat or be eaten" prevailed. And if he wanted to get that rapid industrialization, ( which was the key to success and safety in his understanding,) obviously in his eyes the negative consequences of NEP didn't do any good for his far-going plans.

Well understand this, the more "flexible minds" as you call them were exiled or murdered during Stalin's purges. Stalin was a barely educated tradesman who unlike who Trotsky let the Red Army and organized the people against the Czarist but instead led a brutal and murderous guerrilla bands that even raised the ire of the Bolsheviks. He was a strongman and believed in the total dictatorship of the Party. Those followed him into power, while less relatively less brutal, were all students of Stalins intolerance of any opposition to Party dictates.

If they were as intolerant as Stalin, continuously adhering to his mentality, there would have been no denunciation of Stalin as "brutal dictator" in the fifties.

I'm rushing to get this done...

This is a fundamental flaw in your argument, there was no generational divide. Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Felix Dzerzhinsky the whole lot of Soviet leaders and theorist were all active members in the October Revolution. what divided them was their philosophical outlook on what a Marxist state should look like what policies to follow to achieve it. The Soviet Union could have taken any number of paths had it not been for Stalin's unbridled brutality and absolute intolerance of any opposition - not that Lenin or Trotskly shied away from brutality in the Revolutionary era but unlike Lenin or Trotsky, Stalin was a brutal anti-intellectual peasant who could not destroy their nominal opponents through the force of their ideas.

To say that there was no "generational divide" among them is to say that there was no difference between Tzarist Russia and Soviet Russia, where those two different generation were raised and educated. But obviously, there was a difference, so no "flaw" in my argument.

[Eugene L.]

Originally Posted by erasure

I didn't realize that your "teachers and parents" were members of Politburo.

You threw away my word 'generation'.
If you call graduated people a 'dumb peasants', why can't you be so (instead them)? You use the vicious circle: a 'dumb peasants' because the crisis, and the crisis came on because a 'dumb peasants' sits in Politburo.

Originally Posted by erasure

What I'm saying is that people who were in charge of the country in post-war times could have been smarter and less dogmatic, so they wouldn't have ended up with economic disaster on their hands.

Did it occur to you to find more then one difference between situations NEP and post-war? It looks like you only see your idea and ignore the rest.

Originally Posted by erasure

Obviously, with Stalin's ideas in mind he wanted to put the end to it as soon as possible for his own reasons, and as history showed it, he was right about that one in that particular historical period.

The history couldn't show it. It has no subjunctive mood. There is your opinion only.

Originally Posted by erasure

I have no idea who "Gregori and Melyantsev" are

And are you proud of your ignorance? Paul R. Gregory | Hoover Institution

Originally Posted by erasure

and quite honestly I am not interested in the latest attempts in Russia to re-write the history, stating that tzarist Russia was no different that any western country of that time, but Bolsheviks came out of nowhere and destroyed that beautiful country.

Does anyone hear that I say about 'tzarist Russia'? Well, erasure, haven't you seen the ghosts? Or elves? With your imagination you could...

Originally Posted by erasure

I prefer to deal with the fact that tzarist Russia was still a backward, 80% agrarian country that Bolsheviks inherited with all its ills. And when someone is trying to convince me that the US "GDP growth" was so much higher than Russia's at that time, it's enough to look at what Russia was economic wise at the turn of the century, comparably to the US.

You do not understand the point (like all people of that times). Industrialization is like to airticket. You sit on a plane and it fly up without your help. In fact, you can disturb it (e.g. trying to wave air wings). When the industrialization flight is over, you move yourself again.
Therefore, a linear comparison of countries at different stages of development does not make sense.

Originally Posted by erasure

Oh yeah? So what happened to "internal competition" in Gorbachev's time, that he all of a sudden started tinkering with ideas of private enterprise?

Because the new generation of Soviet elite (and other countrymen in part) wanted to own State property. Enterprise? Yes, enterprise to sell the property for use only, not owned. We have learned to want jeans, chewing gum, VCRs, etc., and we thought that the dollar is really worth 0.6 rouble and it has come to stay...

Originally Posted by erasure

What it has got to do with the "pilots" fer Christ sake,???

Their 'broad basis' should provide flexibility of mind, confidence in democracy and enterprise, self-conception as 'inseparable part of the global community - European community in particular' and etc. But didn't provide.

"But the 9/11 hijackers were "fully formed, well-educated adults, [and] true believers," Dr. Post says. This enabled them to live among Americans for years without straying from their original convictions and determination." (Reading into the mind of a terrorist - CSMonitor.com)