American anti-communism: infested by pinkos (1956)

[I’ll be away during Easter break and for a while after. Except for a draft I have ready and set to be published next week that isn’t directly related to the legitimist mission that this blog has set for itself, my hands are empty for the time being.

Until then, here’s a quick dose of your beloved 1950s Amerikwa that many people want to go back to.]

So I was digging through old texts on American diplomacy when I stumbled upon some documents and minutes of a 1956 meeting of the House Un-American Activities Committee, that dreaded and vile scourge of McCarthyism, entitled: The communist conspiracy: strategy and tactics of world communism.

We are introduced to the hearing thusly:

Among the duties of the Internal Security Subcommittee, pursuant to Senate Resolution 366 of the 81st Congress, is the duty to make a continuing investigation of the extent, nature, and effects of subversive activities in the United States, its Territories and possessions, including, but not limited to, espionage, sabotage, and infiltration by persons who are or may be under the domination of the foreign government or organizations controlling the world Communist movement or any other movement seeking to overthrow the Government of the United States by force and violence.

It is abundantly clear from the numerous projects which the Internal Security Subcommittee has completed pertaining to the Communist conspiracy in the United States, that this conspiracy here is only one tentacle of a worldwide octopus which has as its principal target the United States of America.

If we are adequately to appraise the operation of the Communist conspiracy in this Nation it is essential that we keep abreast of the world strategy and tactics of international communism. Accordingly, I have appointed a task force of the Internal Security Subcommittee, consisting of myself as chairman with Senators Herman Welker and Pat McCarran as members, for the purpose of maintaining a continuing study and investigation of the strategy and tactics of world communism.

The hearing today is the first in a series of hearings on this general subject matter which has many facets, each of which we shall explore as we receive the testimony of a number of witnesses who will be scheduled over the course of the next several months.

Now, before HUAC introduces its exhibits, we get an introduction consisting of, among other things, a summary by none other than AFL-CIO President George Meany on the grave nature of the threat America is facing, and the ways that one can stop communist imperialism.

I have to caution you, this is extremely counterrevolutionary material here. Even hardened High Tories will find it a tad too much to stomach.

Having warned you:

That is why the Communist parties are not political parties in the democratic sense of the word. They are only national sectors of a Russian-directed world body. The military weight and material resources of the Soviet state are the base, the heart and head of Communist activities everywhere. This brute force is combined with a phony religious fanaticism. The Soviet state and its foreign branches constitute a godless church-state. This godless church-state fights on all fronts, in all walks of life, and with any and all means. Its central aim is the extension of the present Moscow-Peking Empire to include the entire world.

[…]

Too many in the free world fail to see the real nature of Communism as the mortal foe of everything that we hold dear, of every moral and spiritual value. Too many in the free world are still prisoners of the illusion that Communism is, historically speaking, a progressive system — extreme liberalism temporarily making bad mistakes. Actually, Communism represents darkest reaction. It is an anti-social system in which there are embedded some of the worst features of savagery, slavery, feudalism and life-sapping exploitation manifested in the industrial revolution of early-day capitalism.

[…]

Not until we of the free world can give rebirth to a vibrant moral attitude, to a burning indignation against such frightful bestialities, can the freedom-loving people be sufficiently stirred to gather the moral strength for resisting and defeating the totally anti-moral dogmas and deeds of Communism at home and abroad. Yes, this means above all a moral struggle against Communism.

[…]

Communism is the very opposite of liberalism. Communism is the deadliest enemy of liberalism. Liberals should be the most consistent and energetic fighters against Communism. Liberals must also be on guard against developing a certain type of McCarthyism of their own. They must shun like a plague the role of being anti-anti-Communist. Only by refusing to be thus entrapped can liberals shed every vestige of subconscious and conscious regard for Communism as a movement with which they have something in common.

Much more regard must be shown by the democracies for principles — for the principles of human rights and human freedom. We must never sacrifice principles to expediency. This means being rigid in support of our principles.

Freedom-loving, all-American anti-Bolshevism: it’s worse than the John Birchers thought. The dark forces of Communist reaction bringing “feudalism” and “life-sapping exploitation manifested in the industrial revolution of early-day capitalism” are certainly out of the way, however. Now we have a benevolent feudalism and a managerialism so beautiful it would reduce the old cameralists like Justi, Pfeiffer and Sonnenfels to tears. Or perhaps indignant rage at how the Kammern no longer have any coherent income-expenditure flows to speak of.

3 thoughts on “American anti-communism: infested by pinkos (1956)

  1. Dunno, Carlyle would have probably agreed, and supported Commies for the very reason social liberals were opposed to them. George Fitzhugh the disciple of Carlyle who advocated slavery for everyone save the select few writes:
    “Socialism is already slavery in all save the master… Our only quarrel with Socialism is, that it will not honestly admit that it owes its recent revival to the failure of universal liberty, and is seeking to bring about slavery again in some form.”

    It’s not for no reason that Carlyleans commonly end up advocating Juche.

    Like

    • I agree, Carlyle would likely have approved. But then I’m not a Carlylean. I’m more of a Blanc de Saint-Bonnet(ian), but I’ll be getting into that later.

      I’m mostly sympathetic to the Carlyle-Fitzhugh case for slavery, but socialism is a) not personalistic enough, b) abhors a coherent hierarchical structure of duties and privileges. It makes every man a serf, but also a noble at the same time in that it bestows upon him a divinely (humanly?) sanctioned right to a communal produce.

      Now, it is fully possible to be both a nobleman and a serf simultaneously. In the Holy Roman Empire, many imperial knights up to the 17th century were ministeriales, that is to say they were legally unfree but held titles and thus the elevated social status that came with them. Before the rise of cameralism, the ministeriales were often enfeoffed with estates by their higher lord they owed obligations to, essentially as a way for the lord to outsource financial administration.

      However, socialism will never recognize any such dependence. It is far too “backward” for socialist sensibilities. So instead socialism makes every man’s person an immediacy to the state planning agency. Not really slavery, actually. It’s a lot like being a freeman in a liberal state, to be honest.

      Like

      • I am sort of political Confucian I guess… I like Chinese and Roman models… laissez-faire with legal slavery.

        I lack your sympathy to Carlyle-Fitzhugh case. It’s one thing to say that no one should be granted liberty to do as they wish, quite another to say that everyone should be plantation chattel. To enslave someone who is not a natural slave is tyrannous, to say nothing of the fact that communal produce to which one has a right under socialism is in severe shortage so he usually never gets it.

        I think serfdom was fine for its time and place, and that it’s time and place specific. Even back in the Middle Ages there were countries that didn’t have serfdom. Eastern Roman paroiki were free peasants for example. Russia only adopted serfdom really, really late in order to finance the cavalry. Doesn’t mean it was right to emancipate the serfs where they existed, however.

        Well, social liberals did create slavery to bureaucracy. Leviathan is master worse than any prince. Slave armies of World Wars testify to that. No prince has ever consigned so many serfs to their deaths.

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s