Isn't it interesting that of so many 20-30 year old people singing, "All we are saying is give Peace a chance" in 1972, that the majority of these people must've also given "W" his majority in 2000 & '04 elections. These people are now in their 50's
WHY would they have lost their prior committment?
(But, isn't it great that some re-found it?)
I've asked myself that question many times. I guess somewhere along the way a lot of people lost sight of what is really important. Hopefully, we'll be able to gain that back, and it looks like that just might happen.
share
The people involved in the leadership of the anti-war movement during the Viet Nam conflict were basically communists (including Lennon, although you notice that he would never subject himself to its policy of confiscation of private property and wealth). They hated the war because we were fighting against communism -- an ideology that they supported. Those who said we had no business there felt that the communists were on the right side of the conflict.
The difference today is two-fold. First, those people are indeed in their fifties now and, being wiser, realize that communism (and socialism) does not work and is, in fact, evil at its core. They no longer hate American culture and they no longer despise capitalism.
Secondly, very few people agree with the ideology of our enemy today. Most people recognize the evil of radical Islamic fascism and will not give support to a movement that undermines the fight against it.
The people involved in the leadership of the anti-war movement during the Viet Nam conflict were basically communists
Really? This statement is supported by what? Could it be the same secret fact book that says that modern anti-war protesters are anti-American?
That's as informed as saying that everyone who isn't Christian is Jewish.
I didn't say that everyone who was against the war was a communist. I said that the leadership of the movement were communists. Or more accurately they were supporters of Communism.
Here I am talking about the most visible activists of the movement. This includes people like Tom Hayden and his wife Jane Fonda. John Lennon would also fit into this category. And have you ever seen the photo of Senator John Kerry shaking hands with his buddy, the communist leader of Nicaragua, Daniel Ortega?
Would that be the elected leader of a foreign country?
How about the photos of Rumsfeld shaking hands with his buddy Saddam, seen those too?
But didn't Rumsfeld shake hands with that enemy of democracy Saddam Hussein?
https://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
ZMJB13 make some really good, valid points. I want to add something to what he said. Another difference between the "kids" who where the protesters back then, who are in thier 50 & 60s now is also naivety and maturity. It is easy to make socialism sound ideal and world peace sound realistic when you are preaching to a young, unworldly, idealistic person. As you get older, more mature, more worldly, you learn many truths that you weren't privy to in your youth. Human nature is that there will always be haves and have nots, and many in between. Your life will be what you make of it, and we will not, can not ever "All be equal".
And so you don't think I have drifted to far off the post, I have been a huge fan of Lennon for 35 years or more. I respect him for his musical talent and his passion. But that doesn't mean I agree with all of his ideals. But the world did suffer a loss when he died.
"The people involved in the leadership of the anti-war movement during the Viet Nam conflict were basically communists (including Lennon, "
LOL
"communism (and socialism) does not work and is, in fact, evil at its core"
LOL
thanks for that laugh, I needed something to help with the hang over
Oh my... Where should I start? Care to tell me why exactly communism and socialism are evil? You do know that the basis of the ideology is "sharing". What exactly is wrong with that? And don't toss me the <insert authoritarian leader here> argument, because that really has little to do with left versus right politically/economically. With reference to the Vietnam War, and if nobody in their right mind could be left-wing politically, why did Vietnamese civilians *want* a communist government? You can't possibly tell me the entire country was insane.
*That*, my friend, is why people were against the war. Along with the fact that war == death == bad. The United States, throughout the cold war (and the Soviet Union reciprocated its actions--it was bad too) went out of its way to interfere with a political shift that was in many cases supported by the masses.
I am a socialist. Do you find my arguments unreasonable? I do indeed despise capitalism, but I still need to eat. If people who support a more left-wing society all just quit their jobs and left their homes, they would most of the influence they might have and all of their capability to try to change their nation politically through democratic (and peaceful) means (though I realize North-American democracies are very, very far from perfect.) And in such a seemingly hardcore capitalist and conservative nation as America, they'd probably die without any food, shelter or healthcare. That's to say nothing of those who, today, actually cannot support themselves financially for any given reason--but hey, sharing is evil, isn't it?
As for your closing statement concerning your "enemy"... This post is already getting quite long, but I suggest you look into the complex political history of the middle-east and the events that the western world has played a part in, while keeping in mind that one person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. Anybody who reads the news from more than one (non-American) perspective will be able to make, probably a better argument than is possible in defence of your statements, saying that your real "enemy" for matters that actually affect you every day is probably your own administration.
Have I turned you to the dark side of the force, or whathaveyou? Probably not. If you are reading this, I thank you for, well--reading this. (Peace out :P)
I respectfully post this reply to erikschneider21:
The basis of socialism is "sharing"? If you willingly give me some of what you own then you are sharing what you have. If I steal what you own and take it for myself, then you are not sharing, you have been robbed.
If you work hard day in and day out and consistently earn more than me but you always wind up having to give me part of your earnings, then you will eventually decide that it is not worth your efforts to work that hard anymore. You might call this greedy and selfish (I call it smart) but that is human nature and it is not going to change.
Just because a majority of the citizens of a country want to steal your property and split it among them does not make it right to do so.
________________________________________________________
If you want to gauge how good or evil a nation is you might consider how many people get killed trying to escape from it. If someone wishes to leave a non-communist country all that person typically needs to do is get on a plane (or a boat or a car) and leave.
I am trying to think of a communist country where the citizens are free to go whenever they choose. The Soviet Union never gave that freedom. Hell, they had to build a wall in Berlin to imprison its citizens because so many of them were fleeing its oppression.
When most Cubans, Chinese and North Koreans want to leave their country, they must literally risk their lives to avoid capture. In 1975, when the U. S. Congress abandoned the United States' commitment to help South Vietnam in the event of an invasion from the North, hordes of people were desperately trying to leave the country before the horror of communism clamped down. It is one of the most shameful episodes in U. S. history.
________________________________________________________
Personally, I consider an organization that takes innocent random people hostage and slices off their heads to be evil terrorists. If someone else thinks those actions are justified and the people who engage in them are "freedom fighters", then that person's moral compass is so far off kilter from mine, that there can be no way to resolve that conflict!
And if you want to talk about freedom, give me the name of an Islamic country that has more freedom than wherever it is that you live? Freedom of religion? Freedom of speech?
________________________________________________________
You did not succeed in turning me to the dark side (and I am sure that you have not been moved by my rebuttal, either). But I thank you as well for reading this!
But who can truly say what human nature is? I can make the argument right back at you that greed is not human nature. Originally humans shared what they had, but when famine and necessity set in a minority imposed themselves upon others to get what they need. Now granted, if it's your life, or someone else's, it's understandable to want to save your own. However, people can become conditioned to nearly anything, greed being one of them. Now, I don't expect to make anyone decide socialism/communism is better, but to realise that it is not evil. In basis, Capitalism is more evil than Socialism, the question that keeps Capitalism in and Socialism out is, is Socialism practical? I say yes, others say no.
Also, you have pointed out several Communist countries, all of which have limitations on their freedoms, agreed. However, that isn't the truth of the idea. It's basically Communist Fascism, and Fascism in any form is terrible, whether in a Capitalist or Communist nation. There is, however, ideas inbetween the two, Democratic Socialism being one. And for the Christians out there, read Acts of the Apostles in the Bible and compare the way the early Christians lived. They were communists, in the real sense of the word, not Sovietist, Stalinists, Leninists, Maoists, or whichever other political leader you want to throw and ist on the end of that perverted the meaning for their own political gains.
Yes, I think Capitalism is not as good as Socialism.
Yes, I think the Soviet Union was terrible, and was glad that it fell.
The same goes for Communist China, Cuba, North Korea, and any nation, no matter what their system of economics, that does not put the people first.
Yes, I think Capitalism is a step up from Mercantilism and the Feudal Order.
No, I do not think Socialism is perfect.
And any of you who support public schools, or the library, what is that but an aspect of Socialism? Can you truly believe that everyone should have to deal with eveything themselves? If so then you can't truly belive in Lennon, nor any great spiritual leaders. I specify spiritual, not religious, because spiritual leaders' inspiration transcends religions, while religious leaders' doesn't.
I don't ask that you all change your mind, I ask that you think about it with an open mind. For those of you that say Socialism/Communism/Capitalism are evil, what have you accomplished? You obviously are just brainwashed into your system, and don't see that all of those have their benefits, and none are perfect. All you accomplish is to make people angry, and spread hatred and ignorance. If you are to look with an open mind, and come to a conclusion opposite of mine, I can respect that, so long as you have reasons for doing so. I obviously totally disagree, but I respect that you have your own view. What I can not respect is people who closemindedly throw about smear campaigns that they've heard before.
"If you are in favour of freedom of speech, that means you are in favour of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise - otherwise you're not in favour of freedom of speech." ~ Noam Chomsky
Zmjb13, you want to tell us why socialism is evil and then come up with a bunch of arguments for why communism is evil. You sound like a typical american to me. You can name some common trees but you could never tell one forest from another.
In plain language: Your examples apply only to communist countries and not to one single non-communist socialist country.
I'll tell you something about evil. Putin has stated that the reason there are terrorists is poverty. In simplicity, an unbalanced distribution of power over ones situation. Some have it, some don't. Those who have it never become terrorists.
He has this knowledge, so what does he do with it? -He uses it to cement his own position by strengthening this imbalance in his region.
One could argue that Bush is handling things wrong because he does not have this knowledge, although that has to be proven, but with Putin there is no doubt. Call it evil if you will.
Now you're going to have to do a whole lot better if you're going to convince anyone who knows absolutely anything about applied socialism that it is evil.
You're trying to tell us that the tree is evil because someone broke a branch and hit you over the head with it. (which in your case may be exactly what has happened) In any case, you're barking up the wrong one.
Zmjbl13 That is a terribly uninformed statement on a variety of levels, . As far as the leaders of the anti-war movement being communist, I think it would be safer to say that if they planned to label themselves politically at all they'd either consider themselves anarchists or New Leftists. The reason they didn't want to fight would probably be better summed up by saying that the people they would be fighting and killing would be the poor and the working-class like themselves, their "brothers," while the leaders on both sides sat around safely making epic quotes. This is an essential socialist arguement against war, yes, but it transcends political labels.
Anyways, your perceptions of communism must have been gleaned from idle banter at the country club because it couldn't be further from the truth.
The USSR was what they call "state capitalist," ie it was a nation that held all the capital in state control, but otherwise still carried out capitalist trading and the like. There was also a class system, a CLASS SYSTEM I tell you. Lenin himself sent soldiers out to fight while he sat around making epic quotes and trying to grow some hair. Communism is a society without social class, and without class there must not be a nation. Marxists think that to make such a world there needs to be a period of redistribution where a benevolent socialist state lays the groundwork for a real ciommunist world. Howver, thanks in no small part to the demagoguery of Stalin, Mao, Castro, and the Kims, the means (socialist state) became the ends. They stopped at socialist-ish states that like America sought only to perpetuate their rule.
Now this is where the anarchist streak in me says that communism can only work without any government at all. It also must be voluntary, so people like yourself could be self-employed if workers' councils and communes make you as unhappy as it seems. However you would have to understand that you could no longer fleace people like the old days.
As far as "robbery," that is what capitalism is and has always been. How can it be anything but when a CEO earns millions more than the men and women on the production lines? Everyone deserves an equal share of what we have made as a society, but capitalism makes this impossible.
By the way, "human nature" does not make society, society makes human nature.
[deleted]
They're not still doing the same thing, for the most part. Orthodox Marxist-Leninists and their Parties have more or less been banished to the annals of history along with "communist countries." (Had you read my post you'd see why this is not only an oxymoron but an outright denial of communist principles.)
This is why I'll reiterate the notion that for communism to have any kind of effect it has to be without government in your sense of the word, or at least a very transparent and responsible one.
[deleted]
"The difference today is two-fold. First, those people are indeed in their fifties now and, being wiser, realize that communism (and socialism) does not work and is, in fact, evil at its core. They no longer hate American culture and they no longer despise capitalism."
Wow, that amazes me. Communism isn't evil, corruption is evil. Stalin was corrupt, as was Mao, as is Bush.
Regards,
The Count
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind"
You people are hopeless, every day the world fills with more anti-socialists, neoconservatives, and plain stupid people.
shareThe first thing you might want to do is learn the difference between Communism and Socialism. That might help your poorly formed views.
shareHey zmjb13, you comments are why everyone BUT americans cant stand america/americans.
sharezmjb13 continues the traditional conservative (often Republican) mindset of whipping out the old "communist" label and applying it to whomever they disagree with. As ridiculous as it is, the word "communist" still resonates with the Republican base, a group who claim to be religious, God-loving people. Excuse me, but the joke "get serious, as if Jesus would ever own a gun and vote Republican" could never be more appropriate than here, in this current age we live in. John Lennon was no communist. He did not believe in any political or religious ideology, as evidenced in songs like God and Imagine. He believed in peaceful resistance to political corruption. People like zmjb13 are living proof that Lennon still scares the corrupt power elite to their core by resorting to lies in an attempt to discredit a progressive vision they simply disagree with. The lies of people like this must be challenged, even in forums like the imdb. Until progressives stand up to their lies, the corruptive power of the establishment will continue. To the conservative/Republican base of zmbj13: This is a free country, and you have the right to your beliefs, but your use of lies is shameful and un-American. Neither will it stifle progressive thought.
shareYoure an idiot
shareNow I know why I disliked G. Gordon Liddy back in 1973. Liddy says that Lennon was not "grateful" for what America offered him. This coming from a man who was convicted of conspiracy, burglary, and wiretapping, and who went to prison. Liddy says that there is a civil war going on in America now, and that his side will win. We must never let the criminal element win. John Lennon was being honest about corruption at the top tier of our government. People like Liddy are the real danger to America.
share[deleted]
People who were in the antiwar movement in the 60's and 70' are still in the antiwar movement today and don't vote republican for the most part. In fact many of them are still in "alternative" political movements: communists, socialists, and whatnot. What happened is that they were never a majority back then in the 60's and are not now. It they had been a majority, they would have taken power then, either Eugene McCarthy or George McGovern would have been elected President of the US, the Vietnam war would have ended much before and the United States would have become a social-democratic country at the least. The Peaceniks are still here, well and alive. People in their 50's who are voting republican now were not involved in the antiwar movement in the 60's. In the 60's there was a lot of support in America for the Vietnam war because of fear of communism, but the US could not win in Vietnam for the same reason that it cannot win in Irak: it is fighting a war on false premises. In Vietnam it was the Gulf of Tonking scam and fear of communism, in Irak it was the weapons of mass destruction scam and fear of terrorism. With a population under fear it is very easy to drive support in favor of war. The Spaniards realized it and pulled out of Irak on time. It is interesting that Lennon was not in the antiwar movement in the 60's. That was AFTER the Beatles were disbanded. My guess is that he was trying to get public attention of antiwar people rather than showing a genuine commitment that he never had. Peace supporters are always a minority in a war.
share[deleted]
As a citizen of a country where men too young to vote (voting age in Australia at that time was 21, conscription age was 20) to fight in what was basically a civil war that had nothing to do with Australia to support a series of corrupt South Vietnamese governments that were hated by their citizens I am proud to have opposed our involvement and voted for the party that opposed our involvement.
You are a trouble stirring know nothing who probably gets his history from clowns hired by Rupert Murdoch. Go play trains.
I forgot to include a third and perhaps most important difference between the protesters of the Viet Nam war and the Iraq war: the draft!
Back then, there were many people who were understandably worried that they might be drafted unwillingly into military service and sent to Viet Nam. This was a major factor in the student protests. The interest in protesting the war dropped off dramatically once the lottery system was put into place and those who had no chance of being drafted decided it was not worth their effort any more.
Today, military service is voluntary. And, aside from a few nut cases, nobody is advocating that we bring back a military draft.
OH MY -- GOOD GRIEF !! I am ROFL !! While I shake my head with disbelief at the same time --- :o( --
Here in Minnesota the aging "hippies' (read nuns, union workers, professors, grammas and grampas, ministers, teachers, priests etc etc etc) are Very Active - while watching & waiting for More young people !
We have met the enemy and IT IS US....
All we have to Fear --- is FEAR itself ! (and fear mongering is currently Very Active)
I think Jesus said "feed the poor" --- but one has to be careful not to Advocate the feeding of the poor --- also beware feeding too many hungry people at once - especially with organization !! -- THAT IS SOCIALISM/COMMUNISM etcetcetc
GOOD GRIEF !! If we do not learn to live without violence in our families,towns,cities,states,countries -- in the world -- we shall all perish. And if we do not wake up to the environmental collapse that is threatening -- and work together across the world -- many will perish.
Violence breeds violence - in the family and in the world.
Ignorance is The Most Violent Element in Society
To learn what is Really going on in the world - tune into Democracy Now.
Heartily seconded sleacc!!
Another thought: there actually have been MANY protests throughout the past several years.
Problem is, nobody hears about them because the power-brokers have a chokehold on the media. This has made it difficult for such rallies and protests to catch on and gain momentum.
[deleted]
"If you feed the poor, you're a saint. If you ask why they're poor, you're a Communist." ~ Dorothy Day
shareI'd rather be a peace loving "un-american" than a blood thirsty "patriot".
"Your'e ALL f$$$$$g SLAVES!"
[deleted]
The people involved in the leadership of the anti-war movement during the Viet Nam conflict were basically communists (including Lennon ...)
I don't think lennon liked communists or capatilists.
sharePeople who know deep down that Vietnam was wrong and a war that wasn't winnable, will always call others Communists and Anti-American, than to admit the cold heart fact that their loved ones died in vain for an unnecessary war.
Where have all the Peaceniks gone? A Peacenik is simply a person who prefers negotiation to armed conflict in the conduct of foreign relations. I think your problem is your picturing a stereotype of a Peacenik, rather than the definition of what a Peacenik is to be. They still exist. They work next to you and live in your neighborhood.
So now that most of the communist countries in the world have collapsed, does that mean the peace movement is dead? The position that support of war can only happen when you are "older and wiser" is, to be frank, ****ing ridiculous and a flat-out lie. Anybody that says war is inherently a good form of conflict resolution needs to get his head examined. They more than likely have never been close to the effects of war themselves, nor are they likely to have served in a warzone. And that's one of the reasons why kids don't support war - because they are always the ones that have to fight it.
shareI think people grew up as the viet nam war became irrelevant
and most people had to get on with the business of living and
paying for children and divorces. most of them were idiots
trying to get laid by liberated women anyway ... the peace
movement turned to crap because there was not much to it.
The problem with the left, they cannot agree on anything
unless it is life threatening, and then when it is fixed
they go back to bickering and hating each other.
Nonsense. The anti-war movement was instrumental in putting pressure on the political leaders to end the US involvement in the war. The PeaceNiks helped end the war, and saved American lives.
shareThere is no longer a Draft. It is a volunteer Military. Kids today are not afraid that they will have to go to war and die for a cause that they do not believe in.
share