sundar@cwruecmp.UUCP (Sundar R. Iyengar) (09/29/86)
I think we need a "new" subject here (new appears within double quotes to signify the fact that nothing seems to be new to the net). In a country that boasts itself of allowing the most personal freedom permissible in terms of freedom of speech, religion and other things, I find it surprising to note that there is indeed a systematic suppression of certain beliefs. Granted that Communism is "despicable", I'd still think that if someone wanted to believe in it, he/she should have the freedom to do so. I recently had to fill up a visa application. Under section in which the introductory sentence reads as, "A visa may not be issued to persons who are within specific categories defined by law as inadmissible to the Uniter States...", one of the categories listed is "[persons] who are or have been members of certain organizations including Communist organizations and those affiliated therewith;". In my opinion that is one of the weaknesses in this country's foreign policy. It seems that anything Red is bad and anything that is not Red may be bad, but it is still good. I am not a Communist but why should anybody care if I am? sundar r iyengar arpa: sundar.case@csnet-relay 531, crawford hall csnet: sundar@case case western reserve university uucp: decvax!cwruecmp!sundar cleveland, oh 44106
tedrick@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (Tom Tedrick) (10/02/86)
>"A visa may not be issued to >persons who are within specific categories defined by law as inadmissible >to the Uniter States...", one of the categories listed is "[persons] who >are or have been members of certain organizations including Communist >organizations and those affiliated therewith;". Since the communists aim at world domination and the destruction of our way of life it hardly seems unreasonable to try and stop them. Communism is like cancer, you can't treat it like a normal condition or it will kill you. >In my opinion that is one of the weaknesses in this country's >foreign policy. It seems that anything Red is bad ... Anything "Red" *IS* bad. The weakness in American foreign policy is in not having found more effective means of dealing with communism. Let me explain communism to you: society is viewed in terms of classes. In order to establish a communist society, the communist party aims at the annihilation of the intellectual class, the political/military class, the capitalist class, and anyone else who could possibly oppose the aims of the party. Witness the mass starvations and liquidations in the Soviet Union and Cambodia during the initial stages of communist rule. Once society has been reduced to a helpless mass of relatively powerless and ignorant individuals, the new order can be imposed. The new order essentially serves to perpetuate and enrich the party at the expense of the masses, in the guise of creating a "workers paradise" (which is nothing more than a fiction created for purposes of propaganda.) Why should we tolerate such a barbaric form of tyranny?
brkirby@watdragon.UUCP (Bruce Kirby) (10/03/86)
In article <15885@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> tedrick@ernie.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (Tom Tedrick) writes: >>"A visa may not be issued to ... [persons] who >>are or have been members of certain organizations including Communist >>organizations and those affiliated therewith;". > >Since the communists aim at world domination and the destruction of >our way of life it hardly seems unreasonable to try and stop them. >Communism is like cancer, you can't treat it like a normal >condition or it will kill you. > >>In my opinion that is one of the weaknesses in this country's >>foreign policy. It seems that anything Red is bad ... > >Anything "Red" *IS* bad. The weakness in American foreign policy is >in not having found more effective means of dealing with communism. > [In-depth description of standard uninformed concept of communism] Tom, I will assume that this is intended to be a parody of the attitudes of many un-informed "McCarthyesque" americans. Unfortunately, to be successful, a satire must exaggerate the opinions it is supposed to make fun of. Too many people actually believe this for it to be a true parody. Better luck next time. Bruce Kirby ----------------------- I mean...you want to know if I'm moral enough to join the army, burn women, kids, houses and villages, after being a litterbug? - A. Guthrie ----------------------- CSNET: brkirby@waterloo.csnet UUCP: {decvax|utzoo|ihnp4|allegra}!watmath!watdragon!brkirby
sundar@cwruecmp.UUCP (Sundar R. Iyengar) (10/03/86)
>Since the communists aim at world domination and the destruction of >our way of life it hardly seems unreasonable to try and stop them. >Communism is like cancer, you can't treat it like a normal >condition or it will kill you. Doesn't this statement find its parallel in the religious persecutions of the past? >Let me explain communism to you: society is viewed in terms of >classes. In order to establish a communist society, the communist >party aims at the annihilation of the intellectual class, the >political/military class, the capitalist class, and anyone >else who could possibly oppose the aims of the party. > >Witness the mass starvations and liquidations in the Soviet Union >and Cambodia during the initial stages of communist rule. > >Once society has been reduced to a helpless mass of relatively >powerless and ignorant individuals, the new order can be imposed. >The new order essentially serves to perpetuate and enrich >the party at the expense of the masses, in the guise of creating >a "workers paradise" (which is nothing more than a fiction created >for purposes of propaganda.) > >Why should we tolerate such a barbaric form of tyranny? You are confusing personal freedom to believe in Communism and a Soviet style communist government. You don't need the later to have the former. I would even go as far as stating that if the majority people of the United States believed in a Communist Party and elected its leader to the post of President, it should be possible (as long as the President, after coming to power, doesn't dismantle the democratic set up). There is at least one country in the world (India) where you are free to believe in any political faith, create a party, stand in elections and even get elected. There are two states in India with Communist governments (the most of the rest, of course, is owned by the Congress party). They are perfectly all right as long as they don't try to tear down the political fabric of the whole nation. sundar r. iyengar arpa: sundar.case@csnet-relay 531, crawford hall csnet: sundar@case case western reserve university uucp: decvax!cwruecmp!sundar cleveland, oh 44106
janw@inmet.UUCP (10/05/86)
[sundar r iyengar: sundar@cwruecmp.UUCP ] >Granted that Communism is "despicable", I'd still think that if >someone wanted to believe in it, he/she should have the freedom >to do so. Of course they should. >I recently had to fill up a visa application. Under section in >which the introductory sentence reads as, "A visa may not be issued to >persons who are within specific categories defined by law as inadmissible >to the Uniter States...", one of the categories listed is "[persons] who >are or have been members of certain organizations including Communist >organizations and those affiliated therewith;". I, too, had to fill these forms; there was something else about *anarchism*, for Pete's (Kropotkin's) sake! Probably included when McKinley was killed. Also about having ever engaged in sex for sale. Granted that the restriction is silly (anyone at all dangerous would lie; *former* Communists aren't Communists etc.) - it does *not* violate the principle you stated above. One is free to be a Communist; one is not free to enter the USA. I happen to object to this last restriction; I think free immigration would benefit both the nation and the world immensely; but it is a *different* question. > I am not a Communist but why should anybody care if I am? Your friends would probably care... But I agree. From the stand- point of *national interests* - Communism isn't the enemy - the Soviet Union is. From the standpoint of *human freedom*, Commun- ism is a danger; but restricting freedom is a lousy way to protect it. In any case, questionnaire forms like this achieve nothing. Jan Wasilewsky
ed@plx.UUCP (10/07/86)
> I will assume that this is intended to be a parody of the attitudes of > many un-informed "McCarthyesque" americans. Unfortunately, to be > successful, a satire must exaggerate the opinions it is supposed to make > fun of. Too many people actually believe this for it to be a true parody. > Better luck next time. > > Bruce Kirby FLAME ON! WHO THE HELL ARE YOU TO CALL PEOPLE WITH DIFFERENT OPINIONS "UN-INFORMED!!!!!" Listen Pal, I'm sick and tired of hearing a bunch or liberals forever baiting conservatives because a somewhat less intelligent or less educated sector of the population agrees with them. I suppose that Bill Buckley is a moron right?? Before you go on judging peoples intelligence or educational background by their political opinions, take a GOOD HARD LOOK AT YOURSELF!! Did it ever occur to you that you are just as predjudiced as those you accuse? By the way, My family lost many members in Communist concentration camps. They have had more experience with the Soviets than many so-called "experts" Sure they have an axe to grind but so do the Blacks here in America. Persicuting people for their *BELIEFS* (and that's all politics is, beliefs) is just as bad as persicuting them for their race. FLAME OFF! Ed Chaban Plexus Computers Inc. Phone: (408) 943-2226 Net: sun!plx!ed
brkirby@watdragon.UUCP (Bruce Kirby) (10/07/86)
In article <293@plx.UUCP> ed@plx.UUCP writes: >> I will assume that this is intended to be a parody of the attitudes of >> many un-informed "McCarthyesque" americans. Unfortunately, to be >> successful, a satire must exaggerate the opinions it is supposed to make >> fun of. Too many people actually believe this for it to be a true parody. >> Better luck next time. > >WHO THE HELL ARE YOU TO CALL PEOPLE WITH DIFFERENT OPINIONS >"UN-INFORMED!!!!!" >[Rantings about liberals, Bill Buckley, etc.] I said "UN-INFORMED!!!!!", because to believe that ALL communists are trying to take over the world, you have to be extremely un-informed. Unfortunately, the mentality that produced the communist witch-hunts in the 1950's still exists in many places. This is based on one over-riding belief: All communists support the Soviet Union. ---------------------------------------- This is simply bullshit. Their are Communist parties in a number of Western European countries, that are completely separate from the soviet union. Communism was a response to the failings of the capitalist economic system. It has been around a lot longer than the USSR. In Canada, there is the CPC-ML (Communist Party of Canada - Marxist Lenninists) which regularly attacks BOTH the US and the USSR because they both have imperialist policies. The point of my posting was to attack this belief. I was commenting on someone that had said that communists should not be allowed in the US because they were out to destroy the country and take over the world. (probably with drugs or pornography or something :-) Bruce Kirby ----------------------- If you think the United States has stood still, who built the largest shopping center in the world? - Richard M. Nixon ----------------------- CSNET: brkirby@waterloo.csnet UUCP: {decvax|utzoo|ihnp4|allegra}!watmath!watdragon!brkirby
bzs@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Barry Shein) (10/08/86)
>I suppose that Bill Buckley is a moron right??
right!
I've never understood this myth about Buckley. Every time I hear him
speak he uses these $10 words, usually wrong. The man is also a
monarchist and sneers disgustingly at anyone who is so unfortunate as
to have to work for a living (having himself come from a very wealthy
family this is neither shocking nor inconsistent.) Oh well, the
conservatives are determined to worship those who love to spit upon
them (and only if it was some spare spittle.)
On the other hand, if the conservatives are ensconced in the
shibboleth that polysyllabic malapropisms are the accouterments and
appurtenances necessary to provide a sinecure for such 'dramatis
personae' far be it for me to do anything but inveigle myself with
such prosody...maybe I'll even write a dime-story spy novel!
-Barry Shein, Boston Universityfalk@sun.UUCP (10/09/86)
> I said "UN-INFORMED!!!!!", because to believe that ALL communists are > trying to take over the world, you have to be extremely un-informed. > ... > This is simply bullshit. There are Communist parties in a number of > Western European countries, that are completely separate from the soviet > union. Communism was a response to the failings of the capitalist economic > system. It has been around a lot longer than the USSR. > In Canada, there is the CPC-ML (Communist Party of Canada - Marxist > Lenninists) which regularly attacks BOTH the US and the USSR because they > both have imperialist policies. > > The point of my posting was to attack this belief. I was commenting on > someone that had said that communists should not be allowed in the US > because they were out to destroy the country and take over the world. > (probably with drugs or pornography or something :-) > Hellen Caldicott made an interesting remark once at a talk comparing the foreign policies of Nixon & Reagan. She said that while Reagan refuses to even meet communists, Nixon was a great statesman because he went to China and extended the hand of friendship to the Chinese. Now we have more communists on our side than Russia does. Russia and China BTW, are bitter enemies. I have heard that Nixon made overtures to the Chinese because he found out that the Russians wanted to launch a nuke attack against the Chinese and he wanted to fend the Russians off. I know a lady who was a real honest-to-goodness card-carrying communist in the 30's; back in the days when the communist party wasn't just a bunch of flakes handing out leaflets at street corners. She quit in disgust when the communists invaded Hungary. She felt it was a total betrayal of what communism was supposed to stand for. In a newspaper interview, she said "I don't feel that I left the communist party; they left me." Anybody who thinks they should judge socialism by the actions of Russia is deluded as to what socialism is. A much better model would be Sweeden or some of the other more developed countries. Russia is a dispicable betrayal of the ideals of socialism. They proved that quite well when they clamped down on Poland's Solidarity movement, thus actually *denying* workers the right to have a say in how they would live. -- -ed falk, sun microsystems falk@sun.com sun!falk
ed@plx.UUCP (10/10/86)
> In article <293@plx.UUCP> ed@plx.UUCP writes: > >> I will assume that this is intended to be a parody of the attitudes of > >> many un-informed "McCarthyesque" americans. Unfortunately, to be > >> successful, a satire must exaggerate the opinions it is supposed to make > >> fun of. Too many people actually believe this for it to be a true parody. > >> Better luck next time. > > > >WHO THE HELL ARE YOU TO CALL PEOPLE WITH DIFFERENT OPINIONS > >"UN-INFORMED!!!!!" > >[Rantings about liberals, Bill Buckley, etc.] > > I said "UN-INFORMED!!!!!", because to believe that ALL communists are > trying to take over the world, you have to be extremely un-informed. > Oh, since *SOME* communists are not interested in taking over the world, then *NO* communists are interested in taking over the world. Since both China and the USSR both advocate the spreading the "revolution" would it be safe to say that MOST communists are interested in taking over the world? > Unfortunately, the mentality that produced the communist witch-hunts in the > 1950's still exists in many places. This is based on one over-riding > belief: > All communists support the Soviet Union. > ---------------------------------------- FALSE FALSE FALSE! All Communists believe in REVOLUTION (Marxists, Leninists, everyone) I Don't care if it comes from the USSR, China, Cuba or another galaxy! I personally do not want to have to deal with the unpleasantries of a revolution. Furthermore, I enjoy capitalism. Unlike communism, capitalism has no axe to grind. Communism was, as you said, designed to REPLACE capitalism. A capitalist does not care if a group of people choose to start a collective commune somewhere while a communist advocates a workers' uprising. Marx, Lenin and others wrote of acts of violence which would bring about world revolution. Now I do not wish to appear as an "Archie Bunker type John-Birch-Soceity KKK MacCarthyist" But I am an anti-communist and proud of it. Sure various communist groups have dissagreements. Some downright HATE each other. They do have one thing in common. They all believe in a system which was designed to replace our current economic system. Not just here but worldwide. I certainly would NOT advocate deporting all communists or refusing them entrance into the USA. I do, however, feel concerned that groups who revere writings which advocate violence and revolution are allowed to spread their beliefs to others. I cannot justify censoring them either. I would gladly wait in long lines for goods which are always unavailable as long as I was free to blame the government for it. Unfortunately, most communists will not allow you to do that. Ed Chaban Plexus Computers Inc. Phone: (408) 943-2226 Net: sun!plx!ed
tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) (10/12/86)
> [ed falk] > Anybody who thinks they should judge socialism by the actions of Russia > is deluded as to what socialism is. A much better model would be > Sweden or some of the other more developed countries. Russia is a > dispicable betrayal of the ideals of socialism. They proved that > quite well when they clamped down on Poland's Solidarity movement, thus ------- Sorry, Ed, it won't wash. Sweden has a capitalist economy. A high level of social welfare spending and a few government owned industries does not make a country "socialist". I thought only right-wing and libertarian ideologues went around labeling such things as "socialism". Of course, Russia is a despicable betrayer of the ideals of socialism, but then, who isn't. The most benign example I could come up with was Yugoslavia. Far less despicable than the USSR, but a far worse violator of human rights than any democratic country in Europe. Ideals don't amount to a hill of beans unless they can be demonstrated in practice. -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
lkk@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU (Larry Kolodney) (10/13/86)
In article <2558@ihlpg.UUCP> tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) writes: [On whether Sweden is socialist] >------- >Sorry, Ed, it won't wash. Sweden has a capitalist economy. A high level of >social welfare spending and a few government owned industries does not make >a country "socialist". I thought only right-wing and libertarian ideologues >went around labeling such things as "socialism". Bill, I think you are too concerned with formalisms, and not with the underlying power structure. The essence of Socialism is popular CONTROL of the means of production. This may occur through state ownership, but there are other models. In Sweden virtually any major decision by a large corporation needs government approval. This sounds like control to me. Free Market and Socialist are two extremes of an economic spectrum, economies can only approach those ideals, and Sweden goes pretty far in the Socialist direction. -- larry kolodney (The Devil's Advocate) UUCP: ...{ihnp4 | decvax!genrad}!mit-eddie!lkk Internet: lkk@xx.lcs.mit.edu