View the H-HOAC Discussion Logs by month
View the Prior Message in H-HOAC's February 2006 logs by: [date] [author] [thread]
View the Next Message in H-HOAC's February 2006 logs by: [date] [author] [thread]
Visit the H-HOAC home page.
Very few ex-turned-anti-communists expressed joy when making the turn. Whittaker Chambers spoke of leaving the winning side for the losing one. Richard Wright, speaking of ex-comrades, wrote that he would be for them but they would not be for him. Anticommunism, a bigger tent than the CPUSA housing social democrats like Sidney Hook and Irving Howe to free marketeers like Hayek and Milton Friedman, had a less heady and romantic objective than their opposite numbers-- namely stopping opression rationalized by progressive banter. Stopping a writer having his bones broken for writing against the state or the execution of a public figure for being 48 hours behind the party line is merely a preventive measure and doesn't have the romantic vision of a classeless society (or as I suspect from my conversations with old STalinists in New York, a society where the intellectuals have all the creature comforts and the rest live in cubicles). It is the difference between seeing the world in all its complexity and chaos and conforming it to a romantic vision--the difference between an adult and a child. Anticommunism has few comforting illusions; stopping opression in one instance doesn't stop it everywhere; anticommunism promises nothing save freedom and freedom is no guarantee of security. Communism, on the other hand, promises everything. ron capshaw