Posted on 08/15/2006 4:51:55 AM PDT by Molly Pitcher
Grove City College publishes an excellent newsletter titled "Visions and Values." Its July 2006 edition features an interview with Dr. Richard Pipes, acclaimed Russian historian and Harvard University professor of Sovietology. The interview was conducted by Grove City College professor of political science Dr. Paul Kengor.
Dr. Pipes, who served on the National Security Council during the Reagan administration, explained that there are actually only a few communists among academics. At first glance, that's a puzzling observation, given the leftist bias at most college campuses. Drs. Pipes and Kengor explain the puzzle in a way that makes perfect sense.
While academic leftists, and I'd include their media allies, are not communists, they are anti-anti-communists. In other words, they have contempt for right-wingers, conservatives or libertarians who are anti-communists. Why? Academic leftists, and their media allies, are in agreement with many of the stated goals of communism, such as equal distribution of wealth, income equality and other goals spelled out in Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels' "Manifesto of the Communist Party." Leftist elites love the ideas of communism so much that they are either blind to, or tolerant of, its many shortcomings.
In practice, communism is nothing less than sheer barbarism that makes even the horrors of Naziism pale in comparison. Professor Rudolph J. Rummel of the University of Hawaii outlines that barbarism in his book "Death by Government," a comprehensive detailing of the roughly 170 million people murdered by their own governments during the 20th century. From 1917 to its collapse in 1991, the Soviet Union murdered about 62 million of its own people. During Mao Zedong's reign, 35,236,000, possibly more, Chinese citizens were murdered. By comparison, Hitler's Nazis managed to murder 21 million of its citizens and citizens in nations they conquered. Adding these numbers to the 60 million lives lost in war makes the 20th century mankind's most brutal era.
At home and abroad, leftists have done a thorough and commendable job documenting and condemning the horrors and crimes of Hitler and his fascist Nazi regime, but when have you heard them direct similar condemnation of Joseph Stalin, his successors and Mao Zedong? By and large, they've chosen to overlook the horrors of communism.
The reason for their reluctance to condemn the barbarism of communism is simple. Dr. Pipes says, "Intellectuals, by the very nature of their professions, grant enormous attention to words and ideas. And they are attracted by socialist ideas. They find that the ideas of communism are praiseworthy and attractive; that, to them, is more important than the practice of communism. Now Nazi ideals, on the other hand, were pure barbarism; nothing could be said in favor of them."
Often, when people evaluate capitalism, they evaluate a system that exists on Earth. When they evaluate communism, they are talking about a non-existent Utopia. What exists on Earth, with all of its problems and shortcomings, is always going to fail miserably when compared to a Utopia. The very attempt to achieve the utopian goals of communism requires the ruthless suppression of the individual and an attack on any institution that might compromise the loyalty of the individual to the state. That's why one of the first orders of business for communism, and those who support its ideas, is the attack on religion and the family.
Rank nations according to whether they are closer to the capitalism end or the communism end of the economic spectrum. Then rank nations according to human rights protections. Finally, rank nations according to per capita income. Without question, citizens of those nations closer to capitalism enjoy a higher standard of living and a far greater measure of liberty than those in nations closer to communism.
I've long worked in the private sector, been a government employee (once upon a time), and even did a little bit of teaching on the side. Wonder where that puts me? :)
Yep, their models and solutions are based on the unrealistic assumptions of perfect rationality and consistent human behavior.
Umm... That would make them Commies.
Any more questions?
You don't have to be an intellectual to fit that bill. I don't consider journalists to be intellectuals (perhaps that's an error), but journalists do nothing but talk, and therefore they promote talk above action. To do so they take every opportunity to denigrate people who get things done - police and the military, businessmen, engineers . . .Now Nazi ideals, on the other hand, were pure barbarism; nothing could be said in favor of them."Journalism is just cheap talk, and the cheapest talk of all is the second guess. And sometimes they are caught in outright lies such as the "TANG memos" and the Fauxtogrphs. Democrat voters tend not to internalize responsibility for getting things done and consider themselves victims. But the leaders and wealthy contributors simply promote the same ideas that ooze out of journalism's negativity toward the middle class.
If you start from the question, "Who says journalism is objective," and "What are the justifications for assuming that journalism - uniquely - is objective," you find that the whole liberal project collapses. Journalism selects the stories it will emphasize and the stories it will not report. And since Half the truth is often a great lie. Benjamin Franklin, it can never be proved that journalism is objective. More to the point, the actual perspective of journalism - cynicism toward the people and institutions which actually do necessary things - is in plain sight and that is not only not "objective," is one which profits from bad news and therefore journalism is a special interest. And therefore journalism is arrogant to argue from the assumption that it is objective.
"Liberal" and Progressive" and "Moderate" are simply honors which journalism awards to its acolytes for toeing journalism's party line that criticism of the people who get things done is a higher function than taking risks in the absence of perfect knowledge in order to take necessary action.
. . . In practice, communism is nothing less than sheer barbarism that makes even the horrors of Naziism pale in comparison.
So although "Fascism" (especially National Socialism) is recognized as a dystopia rather than a utopia, people who are desperate that they get credit which actually belongs by right to the entrepreneur (they want to run the government by the "right" of their desire to 'make everyone equal' - but making the government do that redounds to their credit) are unwilling to give up the idea that the doers deserve credit for their deeds.But real, existing Communism is no different than National Socialism - nobody but thugs would be capable of instituting such a barbarous system.
People who wish for this are SO dense. It requires one of two things:
1) Income is completely unrelated to amount of initiative and effort, or
2) No one must be allowed to decide for themselves how much initiative or effort to exert.
A lot of them are.
Great article.... Bump.
But real, existing Communism is no different than National Socialism - nobody but thugs would be capable of instituting such a barbarous system.
#####
Yes, it is a shame that one got dubbed "the Left" and the other "the Right"
Both are totalitarian in objective, and should share that same end of a spectrum based on liberty.
Nicely put.
...the actual perspective of journalism - cynicism toward the people and institutions which actually do necessary things..."
Journalists, who never produce any tangible products or services, revel in their self-appointed role of critiquing the performance of those who do. They are professionals at second guessing. Rarely do they provide any useful perspective on the circumstances, constraints, etc. faced by those who produce because they don't have any real world experience doing anything even though they portray themselves as instant experts on everything.
You're observation is right on the money.....as a business owner I never pay much attention to any talking head from academia, media or politics that has never had to meet a payroll or worked late into the night or weekends to make sure projects are finished on time. Most of these know-it-alls would be chewed up and spit out in no time if they really had to compete in the very marketplace they've helped to screw up with all their theories and market models.
Along these same lines.....I think a more pertinent discussion would be to identify how much communist style thinking now pervades our political arena. If one were to study the Communist Manifesto vs. the Constitution then compare BOTH to our fedgov operates, the results are pretty eye opening. A couple things that jump out is the federal control of education, a central bank, progressive income tax, etc. Guess which one advocates those positions?
Ping
academic elites are often what i call "limousine commies"-they like ideas that sound utopian,and are unconcerned with and untouched by reality.they have a very nice soft existence-breaks on housing,protection,health care,schooling for their brats,and people listen to them and quote them because many of them are "doctors"-to me a doctor is a physician,dentist,psychologist,or scientist engaged in REAL research(physics,chemistry,etc)NOT an expert in 20th century minority lesbian literature or some similar crap.the irony is that if the real communists ever took power here,or in places where they have,the "intellectual elite"that supported them are the first ones that get turned into mulch.The real world communists are no idiots-they realize how flaky and unreliable these academics are.one can see the appeal of communism(however false)to a guy standing in a dirt field in bangladesh or some other third world craphole whose house gets washed away twice a year along with his crop-if you offer him an extra handful of rice a day,he'd sign up with invaders from mars to get it-he has nothing to lose-but these coddled academics-they make me puke-i hope the next terrorist act happens right in the middle of a faculty conference at one of these hate-America leftist universities,like ward churchill's for example-they'd change their tune fast as soon as heads started rolling-they'd be screaming for the despised police and armed forces to come rescue them-i wouldn't piss on them if they were on fire-i guess i sound hateful-so be it-especially towards people who didn't care an iota for the thousands of ordinary people murdered on 9/11
Since Harvard and the other Ivies are feeder schools for the nation's professoriate, these peculiar prejudices find their way throughout the system. I suspect if state universities could require a significant portion of their faculty to be native residents of their states this would be less of a problem.
Send proof to the Calif. Bar assoc. the Cal. trial lawyers assoc. the Calif. Attorney general etc. and send them twith each as a receiver and send them each certified mail to prove they have been sent and received.
If no action then turn all your info over to the U.S. attorney general.
Like any of that would do any good. However if it were just plain ol u or me any of these would be on us like white on rice.
generally speaking the vast majority of teachers that have been there more then a few years are looking at the clock counting the time til retirement.
Home schoolers are folks actually interested in their children, but it is not always the best option. Many kids then have interaction skills later in life. Folks were too protective.
Rumsfield has done well in the private sector so has some idea. He hasn't been insulated from competition and reality like govt.
Govt is way too big, inept, overly costly and has absolutely no recourse if you are an incompetant. A great place for slackers.
What, you work for the govt? Seems like I struck a nerve there sport.
Someone who should have an insight as to how inept big govt is, and how teachers have little review after their 1st year even if they fail competancy in their declared field.
As a very successful businesman if I ran my company like the govt runs their business I'd have gone bankrupt long ago.
Some preach Communism...
but in personal life are smart Capitalist.
See the chapter on Noam Chomsky in Peter Schweizer's "Do As I Say
(Not As I Do); Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy.
The guy is pretty rich for a crusty academic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.