Blacklist: Right Wing used the same methods as the Communists - Trumbo (2015) Discussion

[–] CryBaby_Cry 8 years ago

Yup and it's not surprising that so many MURICANS now claim people like McCarthy and G. Gordon Liddy (a fascist who pathetically chokes up at the mention of the word "abortion") were/are "American patriots." Blame 20 years of brainwashing via Fox Noise and other RW propaganda empires.

Bring Out the Gimp

reply

[–] KingVidor 8 years ago

 Ha, ha, ha, ha...You're the same guy who's on the "Truth" board talking about how great that movie allegedly is - an absurdly propagandistic and blatantly dishonest movie that even the leftist press said was junk. You are the poster child for demented, unhinged propaganda victims.

reply

[–] Suey_Ciders 8 years ago

You roll around laughing but deep down you're angry and hurt, it would do you well to enlist the services of a psychiatrist.

reply

[–] aag12345-1 8 years ago

So, you're the loser that's following people from board to board for films with political content and ragging on them, even though they offered thoughts on the movie in question and you bring nothing, other than flaming someone. Did you even see Trumbo?

"Boy that was really exciting. I bet you're a big Lee Marvin fan aren't ya."

reply

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] muzak_man 8 years ago

You guys have both drunk the coolaid.

reply

[–] seroteamavi2001 8 years ago

RFK was a Right Wing fanatic?
The only reason he was replaced with Roy Cohn is him and McCarthy did not want it to look like it was a Jew-hunt. Cohn was actually a Democrat who was Jewish and yet many of the people he hunted were Jewish.

Funny thing is that if the Communists had taken over, the freedom of speech would be gone. Think about the paradox.

reply

[–] goonies383 8 years ago

Communism and democracy are not mutually exclusive. Nor is free speach and communism. You like many are confusing communism with a dictatorship, they aren't the same. There are dictators that employ all types of economic and social policies, Stalin claimed communism though the government hoarded the money a lived large while they let their people suffer. Same with North Korea, it's the dictatorship that's the problem.

The ideals behind communism are the same ideals behind unions. That people united for common interests are more powerful than the aristocracy. That as a community we have responsibility to our fellow countrymen. It has been rebranded to democratic socialism today and has been employed in several free countries successfully.

reply

[–] Bilwick1 8 years ago

I don't think you actually understand the nature of a "free country." The fact that the electorate may vote themselves into serfdom doesn't make it not-serfdom.

"That as a community we have responsibility to our fellow countrymen." Well, there's no arguing with theocrats--particularly from this religion:

https://grrrgraphics.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/shrine_of_the_statists1.jpg

reply

[–] goonies383 8 years ago

Like I said you are confusing capitalism with freedom and communism with a dictatorship. They aren't the same thing. You can be free in a country with strong social programs. Does complete communism work?... no probably not, but neither does complete unregulated capitalism.

reply

[–] dmfaust 8 years ago

"Strong social programs" is not communism. That's just Socialism. Communism is a different beast entirely, and no you cannot be free under Communism. The very structure of the government in a Communist state requires suppression by a small governing class of the broad working class. That's not to say you can't like your role and be happy in a Communist state, I'm sure many were, but you aren't "free" by the very definition of the word. Emigration is strictly controlled if not outright nonexistent so you can't even just leave, religious freedom is trampled under worship of the state itself, and even within the Communist structure your job itself is chosen by the state. And forget simply electing a new leader, because it is a one party(the state) system by design. It is also a system that breeds corruption and nepotism far worse than anything in Socialist Democracies or purely Capitalist countries(which is saying something) as people try to escape the yoke of oppression by playing on connections within the ruling class.

There is no such thing as "complete communism", it's just Communism or not Communism. The concept of Communism as an extreme form (a "complete") of Socialism is simply a comparison for the sake of description to school children, and not really accurate. Communism inherently comes with a specific structuring of the state and classes, Socialism does not(hence you can have a Social Democracy such as some places in Europe or a Social dictatorship such as some South American countries). You can even then take it a step further and have a Capitalist Communist government which promotes profit and growth... simply just for the state(the new China).

Capitalism and Communism have never been true opposites, as they relate to different aspects of the government and economy. Not to be confused with Free Market Capitalism(classical liberalism) which is inherently antagonistic to Communism and Fascism even if relating not to directly to government structure(again, as Communism inherently does) but rather economic policy as it is a policy that cannot exist under those forms of government.

reply

[–] Information-Police (4053) 4 years ago

The ideal of communism is a stateless society. Of course, that has never been achieved, nor had it been given a chance on a large scale.

Also, the ideals of capitalism where an " invisible hand guides business to do good ask the tone had never been achieved, either.

reply

[–] Bilwick1 8 years ago

"Like I said you are confusing capitalism with freedom and communism with a dictatorship. "

No, I'm not. Freedom is freedom, and if you want socialism in a free country, you can have it. You and all like-minded people can consider your property as owned by the group, share and share alike, to each according to his ability, etc. And then--because it's a free society (as opposed to what Leonard Read called the Command Society, which I'm guessing you'd prefer)--YOU LEAVE THE REST OF US THE HELL ALONE.

You can believe Peter has a responsibility to help Paul, or whatever superstition you want to believe in (if you object to it being labeled "superstition," try to prove it logically), but if you try to use the State to force the rest of us to submit to it, then you are not so much a socialist or communist, as a theocrat.

reply

[–] goonies383 8 years ago

Freedom is freedom what does that even mean? As a free society we all contribute to the public good, because we all benefit in some way from the public good. There are things my taxes go to that I would prefer they didn't like the over bloated military budget and corporate subsidies. The Right claiming they believe in small government and freedom is a joke because they seem to be doing things that hurt freedom far more than the left and they tax plenty when the program is military or benefits corperate America. They use words like freedom and small government as buzz words to manipulate the electorate.

reply

[–] mcmingus 8 years ago

Yep.

*Danny's not here, Mrs. Torrance*

reply

[–] Bilwick1 8 years ago

"The Right claiming they believe in small government and freedom is a joke because they seem to be doing things that hurt freedom far more than the left . . ." Care to give some specific examples of this? Not that I'll hold my breath. I'm still waiting for you to logically justify your belief that Peter has an obligation to help Paul and that you have a right to force him to.

reply

[–] featheredsun 8 years ago

Two recently relevant examples would be immigration and gay marriage.

A disturbing number of folks would like to make it harder for immigrants to have an opportunity to live and work peacefully in our society. Many of those same folks also believe that gay men and women do not deserve the same rights as those who identify as heterosexual, that is to have a legally-recognized marriage. These are both "conservative/right-wing" platforms, and they both attack basic human freedoms.

I realize there's a spectrum, and I'm not saying that certain values hold no merit, but I would urge anyone to consider how their values affect others' lives and rights to peace and prosperity.

reply

[–] Bobby_Dupea 8 years ago

A disturbing number of folks would like to make it harder for immigrants to have an opportunity to live and work peacefully in our society.

Nothing disturbing at all. If we had unrestricted immigration, a you'd have millions of people coming here all competing for scarce jobs and further driving down wages. Just look at the unemployed that are here already. Not to mention all the social services we would have to pay for.

but I would urge anyone to consider how their values affect others' lives and rights to peace and prosperity.

And vice-versa. Or is that only supposed to be a one-way street?

reply

[–] featheredsun 8 years ago

We should probably start with the Irish and Italians. Obvious trouble, those people, with their dangerous Catholicism and their criminal proclivities.

reply

[–] Bobby_Dupea 8 years ago

We should start with red herrings. Pick them out of thin air, especially when they don't really apply anymore.

reply

[–] Bilwick1 7 years ago

A reading of Raspail's "Camp of the Saints" is in order.

reply

[–] pjpoconnell 8 years ago

Dude: Karl Marx defined Communism as "the DICTATORSHIP of the proletariat."!

reply

[–] DaveR011 8 years ago

Like I said you are confusing capitalism with freedom and communism with a dictatorship. They aren't the same thing. You can be free in a country with strong social programs.

Do take a look at actual Communist countries, in particular, the ones that existed in the late 1940's and early 1950's including ones Trumbo explicitly supported - the Soviet Union and North Korea. Near total government control of all property and industry, the repression of alternative opinions, the torture, judicial and extra judicial murder

That's a bit more than "strong social programs". Even those who claim to repect basic human rights (though usually when pressed they seem to make a number of exceptions) call for state ownership of the means of production and collectivized agriculture.

reply

[–] bruce-129 8 years ago

There is no such thing as a communist country ... they are just dictatorships of groups of thugs.
Nothing you say has any applicability to anything.

reply

[–] DaveR011 8 years ago

That's rather what Communists are. The ideology requires violent revolution - led by the Vanguard of the Proletariat (i.e. the Communist Party) and requires violence to remain in power as heretics and infidels must be eliminated.

Trumbo, of course, was a member of a party you would no doubt claim were not real communists, despite their name, and supported rule by thugs, and were controlled by a hostile foreign government composed of thugs.

Do note that the efforts of the US government were directed towards members of the Moscow controlled CPUSA and hostile foreign intelligence agencies like the KGB and GRU not people you think were "real" communists, if any then existed in significant numbers.

reply

[–] Lawdent 8 years ago

People change over time. The RFK who worked for McCarthy was not the same man who was AG under his brother, and especially after his brother's death. Read Arthur Schlesinger's "Robert Kennedy And His Times", a great bio. Cohn was a closeted, self-loathing gay. Your mentioning that he was a Democrat is interesting, but fails to acknowledge that both parties back then had liberal and conservative wings. It's only in the last 30 years or so that the parties have become so monolithic ideologically.

"When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."
... "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance"

reply

[–] DaveR011 8 years ago

Arthur Schlesinger's "Robert Kennedy And His Times", a great bio.

Marred somewhat by Schlesinger being a longtime Kennedy employee. Hardly an unbiased source.

reply

[–] Lawdent 8 years ago

A biography written by someone who actually knew the man? Why, that's shocking! Shocking, I say! It is an award-winning biography. Check it out.

"When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."
... "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance"

reply

[–] DaveR011 8 years ago

If I were to read one biography of Robert Kennedy, It wouldn't be a hagiography written by someone dependent on the continuing good will of the Kennedys and the Democratic party for both his livelihood and self image.Indeed, most of his professional life was as a propagandist for them, even after RFK's death.

reply

[–] Lawdent 8 years ago

Whatever, dude. The point is RFK changed over the course of his life, and particularly after his brother's death. Every biographer has written of this. Further, your attempt to change the subject has not gone unnoticed. Conservatives just love to point out (conservative) Democrats from days gone by as "proof" that just as bigoted or mean-spirited as they are, or to argue that (liberal) Republicans were champions of civil rights -- conveniently ignoring the fact that both parties had liberal and conservative wings until the last 30 years or so, and that the Democrats and Republicans they speak of would be in the opposite party, ideologically, today.

"When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."
... "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance"

reply

[–] DaveR011 8 years ago

Further, your attempt to change the subject has not gone unnoticed.

Really? I thought the subject was how Arthur Schlesinger's biography was the bestest source ever on RFK.

Conservatives just love to point out (conservative) Democrats from days gone by

RFK was never a conservative Democrat. Opposition to Communists was a bipartisan position at that time supported by left and right of centre politicians. It's rank presentism to pretend that HUAC and the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee were purely conservative operations.

As for the conservative wing of the Republican party opposing civil rights, that's not supported. Some did differ on the best way to achieve improvements in this area, but that isn't the same thing.

reply

[–] Lawdent 8 years ago

Please go back and read my original post that started this lovely conversation. It was about RFK working for McCarthy. You're the one who changed the subject by going off on a tangent about Schlesinger not being capable of writing an unbiased bio. Plus, I never said that RFK was a "conservative Democrat." However, he did think, initially, that McCarthy was doing good work and it wasn't until later that he regretted that period. My point is that I see this argument a lot lately -- conservatives deceitfully holding up Republicans (liberals) from another era for supporting civil rights or the environment or women's rights, and Democrats (conservatives and usually Southerners) from another era for opposing same, and trying to argue that this has some relevance to today's political make up. It doesn't. What has been a constant is that liberals (in both parties historically) have been champions of progress and conservatives (in both parties) have been against it.

Please name one conservative, in either party, who was in favor of civil rights in the 50's/60', who marched with Dr. King, who voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, who did ANYTHING other than oppose the movement. Just one. Don't say Eisenhower, because he wasn't a conservative. Goodness knows, he'd be run out of the GOP today. And don't say Charlton Heston because he was a liberal back then, and only became conservative as he got older, particularly on the gun issue. Name one true conservative -- who would still be considered conservative, ideologically, today -- who was on the side of Civil Rights. Oh, there were conservatives at the civil rights marches all right -- they were on the other end of the fire hoses.

"When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."
... "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance"

reply

[–] DaveR011 8 years ago

read my original post that started this lovely conversation. It was about RFK working for McCarthy.

The original post on Kennedy, though, was not by you. It was by seroteamavi2001 on Mon Nov 23 2015 at 11:45:19 where he ironically asked if RFK was a right wing fanatic. Context matters.

going off on a tangent about Schlesinger not being capable of writing an unbiased bio

You did bring him up first by citing him as a source for Kennedy's change of heart. That your source may be unreliable is not tangential to the conversation, even if inconvenient for your argument.

it wasn't until later that he regretted that period.

And that he did so when it was politically convenient for him is as coincidental as his then politically popular support for investigating Communist infiltration of American institutions.

Plus, I never said that RFK was a "conservative Democrat."

Then writing "Conservatives just love to point out (conservative) Democrats from days gone by" in a discussion about Kennedy was just a random non sequitur was it?

Please name one conservative, in either party,

How about the overwhelming majority of Republicans in both House and Senate (over eighty percent) who voted for the 1960s' Civil Rights Acts? That's not much less than the number of Northern Democrats. The few Republicans who voted against mainly did so because of concerns that the Acts were in spirit unconstitutional rather than because, like otherwise liberal Southern Dems, they didn't like Blacks. The 1957 and 1960 Acts which were focused on clearly fedral issues were passed be even greater Republican support, including people like Barry Goldwater.

don't say Charlton Heston because he was a liberal back then, and only became conservative as he got older

By "became conservative" you mean kept the same opinions he had in the sixties while the Democratic Party moved further left. As former Democrat Ronald Reagan once said, he didn't leave them, they left him. Nor will you find any significant numbers of modern Republicans who support reinstating segregation and discrimination.

reply

[–] DaveR011 8 years ago

Actually, I was not entirely right. Heston did change some of his opinions over the years. One he never changed was his support for civil rights. He remained justifiably proud of his work in that area until his death nearly half a century later. I note that it took a great deal more moral courage to publicly oppose segregation in 1961 than to oppose Communism in 1952.

reply

[–] Lawdent 8 years ago

You just proved my point. All of those Republicans who supported Civil Rights legislation in the 60s were LIBERAL Republicans, or at least moderates -- you now, the kind of Republicans that don't exist anymore. And all the Democrats who were against that legislation were CONSERVATIVE Democrats, mostly from the South -- again, the kind that don't exist anymore because they all moved into the GOP over the last 40 years or so. Indeed, the once solid South for the Democrats is now the solid South for the GOP mostly because of the race issue (along with the masterfully cynical, hypocritical, yet sadly successful, strategy to portray the GOP as the party of God). You have failed to name a conservative who was on the right side of history in the Civil Rights Era. And you can't, because there were none. Thanks for providing my point.

"When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."
... "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance"

reply

[–] DaveR011 8 years ago

All of those Republicans who supported Civil Rights legislation in the 60s were LIBERAL Republicans, or at least moderates

Barry Goldwater and all the other Republicans who voted for the 1957 and 1960 Civil Rights Act were liberals as were the eighty percent of Republican legislators who voted for the 1964 Act? Sorry, those numbers do not work.

And all the Democrats who were against that legislation were CONSERVATIVE Democrats, mostly from the South

In fact, most of those Southern legislators voted in great numbers for Johnson's Great Society social programs. That legislation routinely received ninety per cent plus support from Democrat legislators. Need I note that well more than ten percent of Democrats then were from the South? So called liberal Republicans opposed them by similar or greater margins

the once solid South for the Democrats is now the solid South for the GOP mostly because of the race issue

That's the Democrat party line. What actually happened is that Republican support for conservative Christianity, support for defence and traditional patriotism, and its support of conservative fiscal policy proved popular in the South. Nothing in the GOP program calls for a return to segregation and similar practices.

Edited to note GOP opposition to Great Society legislation.

reply

[–] Lawdent 8 years ago

Of course they can't blatantly call for a return to "segregation and similar practices" (although Trump is coming pretty close these days). They use code words and dog whistles, as the late Lee Atwater admitted on his death bed, and the former RNC chair admitted a few years ago. Seriously, dude, read some history.

"When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."
... "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance"

reply

[–] DaveR011 8 years ago

I see that now all your other arguments have been discredited, you're trying to play the race card. Sorry mate, I'm not playing.

The DNC invented racism where none exists so that kool-aid drinkers like you can pretend their political rivals are not just different, but evil. These so called code words and dog whistles only exist in their minds.

As for reading history, it rather seems you should take your own advice and read more than partisan propaganda.

As for Atwater, the interview you are likely referring to was not on his death bed but some years before. After talking about race he then said this:

"But Reagan did not have to do a southern strategy for two reasons. Number one, race was not a dominant issue. And number two, the mainstream issues in this campaign had been, quote, southern issues since way back in the sixties. So Reagan goes out and campaigns on the issues of economics and of national defense. The whole campaign was devoid of any kind of racism, any kind of reference."

reply

[–] Lawdent 8 years ago

What are you talking about? I still stand by all my arguments. Because I'm right. I'm just tired of arguing with someone who lives in the conservative bubble. As for race, pointing out racism is not "playing the race card." It is a well-documented fact that the GOP has been using dog-whistle rhetoric in the South since 1968. All those conservative Southern Democrats switched to the GOP over time. As for Atwater, I meant "death bed" figuratively, not literally. He knew he was terminal when he confessed his sins.

You actually believe that the DNC invented the tactic of portraying political rivals as not just different, but evil??? That's rich. It's been the Republicans of the last 35 years that have mastered that. Wow.

You bore me. Same old right-wing lies.

"When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."
... "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance"

reply

[–] DaveR011 8 years ago

What are you talking about? I still stand by all my arguments. Because I'm right.

The actual data, particularly the voting records of Southern Democrats and conservative Republicans, does not support your position.

It is a well-documented fact that the GOP has been using dog-whistle rhetoric in the South since 1968.

Except that they really haven't. Atwater himself pointed that out.

He knew he was terminal when he confessed his sins.

The interview where he talked about the Southern Strategy was some nine years before he was diagnosed with the illness that killed him. Besides, for all their alleged dog whistles and other inaudible calls, I note that the GOP has not resurrected segregation or enforced discrimination even when they had control of the White House, House, Senate, and Supreme Court. If they were the unreconstructed White Supremacists you claim, one would have thought they'd have actually done something about that.

You actually believe that the DNC invented the tactic of portraying political rivals as not just different, but evil?

Besides being a tacit admission that you're doing just that, that sentence is an example of the tu quoque fallacy. As such, it requires no further response.

reply

[–] Lawdent 8 years ago

Dude, this is just getting sad. Don't you have a life or something?

"When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."
... "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance"

reply

[–] DaveR011 8 years ago

this is just getting sad. Don't you have a life or something

Thank you for your concern, but I'm probably taking only five or ten minutes more to write some of my posts than you are. It turns out that finding congressional voting records and reasonably objective biographies is rather quick and easy.

reply

[–] Lawdent 8 years ago

Yes, but understanding them is something entirely different.

"When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."
... "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance"

reply

[–] tomcatjak 8 years ago

Funny thing is that if the Communists had taken over, the freedom of speech would be gone.

A common misconception. Marx was a big advocate of freedom of press and speech, there is nothing in any Marxist doctrine that says you cannot have free speech in a Communist society. Marx wasn't alive for the rise of Communism in the mid 1900's but if he were he would likely condemn both the Soviet and Chinese regimes. Marx fought against government censors in his lifetime and had this to say:

"to fight freedom of the press, one must maintain the thesis of the permanent immaturity of the human race... If the immaturity of the human race is the mystical ground for opposing freedom of the press, then certainly censorship is a most reasonable means of hindering the human race from coming of age." -Karl Marx

Just proof that even old propaganda still works.

reply

[–] Bilwick1 8 years ago

Because not wanting to hire someone or advising others not to hire someone is the moral equivalent of the Gulag and liquidation.

Genius.

reply

[–] cultfilmfreaksdotcom 8 years ago

Okay, so the RIght Wingers did what the communists did by getting rid of free speech, and yet, Trumbo was a communist who wanted free speech?

I think millionaire hollywood types are communists like little children are fireman. It's all a neat fantasy.

All Movie Reviews www.cultfilmfreaks.com

reply

[–] DorkoTheDorkLord 8 years ago

Look, if the film studios had simply decided on their own "Hey, we don't wanna employ communists anymore", that would be problematic but completely their right.

They didn't. The Congress of the United States of America began calling anyone and everyone suspected of communist sympathies to testify before them, then threatening them with contempt of congress when they refused to recant their political beliefs and sell their associates up the river for the same treatment. Employing a suspected communist was enough to get your name added to their list. When the choices are go before congress and sell out as many people as you can, go before congress and tossed in jail, or fire any "commies" on your payroll, that's not freedom.

reply

[–] mcmingus 8 years ago

Well said.

*Danny's not here, Mrs. Torrance*

reply

[–] DaveR011 8 years ago

The Congress of the United States of America began calling anyone and everyone suspected of communist sympathies

Or at least those working for the government or in a position to affect public opinion. Given that Communists, like Trumbo, explicitly supported regimes like Stalin's and Kim Il Sung's (and that the US was actually at war with North Korea at the time), it's no more surprising that they were targeted for investigation than Nazi sympathizers were during WWII.

When the choices are go before congress and sell out as many people as you can, go before congress and tossed in jail, or fire any "commies" on your payroll, that's not freedom.

By "sell out", I presume you mean answer questions about people known to you to be supporters of mass murder. Few, if any, employers called before the House or Senate committees could honestly say they knew for a fact that certain of their employees were or had bee members of a subversive organization.

Note, by the way, that the US government could not and did not compel anyone to fire Communists simply for their beliefs.

reply

[–] bruce-129 8 years ago

Except the Communists, in Russia and China were not Communists at all, and the Communists the HUAC hunted down, none of them did anything, were working for any foreign power, and they were not Communists in the totalitarian fascist state sense that Russia and China were ... they were like the daughter, people who thought the wealthy have an obligation to support the country - to share.

reply

[–] howellchyan 8 years ago

Exactly, ISIS are not muslims at all.

reply

[–] howellchyan 8 years ago

Some history lessons:
Most of the CPUSA members were stalinists in 1940s and 50s, which was the exact reason why they suffered from a cataclysmic effect following the secret speech of Nikita Khrushchev.
Trumbo was a CPUSA member until 1948.
Many CPUSA members became Maoists since late 1950s so as the students of May 68.
SO was CPUSA a real communist party? Or what are real communists? Trotskyist？
Forgot to mention CPUSA received Soviet funding until 1989.
"none of them did anything", what about Alger Hiss huh? or the Rosenbergs? ever heard of Venona project?

Plus, Commuists say those kind of things all the time before they take power. But we all know what they will be like when they are in charge. And this lesson cost tens of millions of lives and ruined economies.

reply

[–] bruce-129 8 years ago

You are using a very weak guilt by association argument here, that is if someone has any connection to a communist organization then they are an agent of Russia fomenting revolution. You go on and on about the communist party and no mention of Trumbo.

reply

[–] howellchyan 8 years ago

Hello there, who said "none of them did anything"?
Of course not all of them were Soviet spys(USSR was not that stupid to use Hollywood writers as field agents), but I could at least say most of them were communist/Soviet sympathizers. I'm perfectly ok with them just losing their jobs and reputation while the real spys being imprisoned.

reply

[–] Suey_Ciders 8 years ago

I'd say you're perfectly ok rocking a stunted intellect, go back to your fascist think tank where your Neanderthalian spewing is acceptable.

reply

[–] DaveR011 8 years ago

Except the Communists, in Russia and China were not Communists at all,

They said they were and Trumbo agreed. It was pro-Stalin extremists like Trumbo et al who were being investigated. That other, less successful, Marxists may have different views on who is a real communist is rather moot.

they were not Communists in the totalitarian fascist state sense that Russia and China were

Actually, yes, they were - and mostly proud of it.

reply

[–] califor123 8 years ago

The right still uses the commie playbook. The right impoverishes the left. They are *beep*

reply

[–] bruce-129 8 years ago

The right-wing are merely the "communists" that won.

reply

[–] oldpunkwebzine 8 years ago

Yes, the right wing set up gulags and starved 14 million people to death for their land. They equaled Pol Pot's Killing Fields and killed 67 million of their own people like Mao. I could go on but the right wing are just too much like communists to continue.

reply

[–] goerge12344 8 years ago

the us is responsible for millions of deaths in various countries where it backed the violent overthrow of elected government. and the uk killed millions of indians alone in ways similar to those which killed tens of millions under mao in china.

reply

[–] mlaiuppa 8 years ago

The left isn't suggesting interring Muslims in camps and making "lists" to register them all.

What next? Tattoos? Will they have to wear armbands?

It's not the "Libruls" this nation needs to guard against.

It's our "patriotic" right wing that will "patriot" us right into fascism.

reply

[–] Krustallos 8 years ago

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."

Samuel Johnson

I used to want to change the world. Now I just want to leave the room with a little dignity.

reply