The Origins of Anti-Communism in the United States

[danlo]

To compliment Revan's thread, and to refresh my memory, I went looking for Karl Marx's original vision of communism-Somehow, I stumbled across this fascinating excerpt,

In 1919, the U.S. House of Representatives refused to seat Socialist representative from Wisconsin, Victor L. Berger, because of his socialism, German ancestry, and anti-war views. Congress also passed a series of immigration, anti-anarchist, and sedition acts (including the Sedition Act of 1918) that sought to criminalize or punish advocacy of violent revolution.

In response, on June 2, 1919 a number of bombs were detonated by Galleanist anarchists in eight American cities, including one in Washington that damaged the home of newly appointed Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer. Another bomb reportedly detonated near Franklin Roosevelt. Palmer himself was badly shaken up (the bomber himself, Carlo Valdonoci, was also killed by the bomb, which exploded prematurely in his face). All of the bombs were delivered with a flyer that clearly indicated the bombers' intent:

While I knew of the situation with Berger, and the Sedition Act, of course, I honestly have never heard of the bombings before, wow! This Wikipedia article traces the origins of anti-communists sentiment back to 1915 and Woodrow Wilson, and how Palmer, twice the victim of attempted assasination began to wage war on all communist sympathizers in the U. S.

[Revan]

I speculate that American government feared Communism – because it would seize power from their grasp. Then the American people became afflicted with fear because of three main reasons:
1) Media has always been a powerful tool in any country. Media nourished the growing fear of Communism in the American people.
2) Many Americans have a habit of being traditionalists; this inbred fear of change to long obeyed norms in their society caused them to be repulsed by the very idea of communism.
3) I think the Soviet Union certainly accentuated the amount of fear the American people felt for Communism; and again the Media was always adding fuel to the fire of American’s fear. This fear of Communism processed itself into a hatred among many Americans.

[danlo]

The bombings are pretty significant--I think I may have heard about this very briefly, like in college in '76, and quickly forgot it, for some reason. But, think about it, the US was at war, or just about to enter the war--this was like the 9/11 of it's time...no wonder the public was shaken up. Agreed, the press was basically THE media in those days.

off topic: There's a old foriegn movie that puts a very human twist on communism, it's a wonderful film that I'll have to see again soon, called The Twelve Chairs. See it if you can!

[Avatar]

There is also the fact that at that stage, the public were media-naive...today we try and see the spin on everything. Back then, every technique was new and nobody had defences.

Just look at adverts from even the 40's and you'll wonder how the hell they sold anything with such blatant pap. People believed what they were told.

--A

[ur-monkey]

So what's really changed, eh?

A few more cynics, maybe (like us world-weary warhorses on KW, for inst) but by and large, as far as I can see, most people still demonstrate breathtaking naivety when it comes to advertising and politics, from beautification products to the War on Terror.

And, to confound matters as I see it, we've got information overload to deal with nowadays. I'm bombarded with so much bombast I'm not convinced I'd recognise the truth if it got up and sold me a pair of shoes...

[High Lord Tolkien]

There is also the fact that at that stage, the public were media-naive...today we try and see the spin on everything. Back then, every technique was new and nobody had defences.

Were the people/media "naive" or smart enough to see communism as the true threat it is back then?
Unlike today.

[Lord Mhoram]

Socialist politicians in and of themselves are in no way threatening.

[High Lord Tolkien]

Socialist politicians in and of themselves are in no way threatening.

I guess that's true if they don't ever vote or influence lawmaking and/or policy.

[Brinn]

It's not the politicians that concern me but rather their policies.

[Lord Mhoram]

More troubling to me would be the US House denying a position to a politican on the basis of his party alone, or the witch hunt, paranoia, and fear-mongering of anti-Communist McCarthyism.

[CovenantJr]

Agreed.

There is also the fact that at that stage, the public were media-naive...today we try and see the spin on everything. Back then, every technique was new and nobody had defences.

Were the people/media "naive" or smart enough to see communism as the true threat it is back then?
Unlike today.

"True threat"? It's only bloody Communism. There is nothing innately wrong with Communism, still less socialism. The ways in which it's been implemented have generally been bad, and Communism would probably never work in reality, but it's not threatening. Any threat posed by Communism is entirely in your own head.

[Avatar]

Good post Cj. I actually did a double take when I read HLT's post.

Ur-Monkey, nice to see you around.

Fair enough point, but I'm sureyou'll agree that advertising for example (and propoganda) has become much more sophisticated.

--A

[High Lord Tolkien]

"True threat"? It's only bloody Communism. There is nothing innately wrong with Communism, still less socialism.

Except that it's the polar opposite of capitalism.
By definition the two can't work together.
(China *allows* or suffers the emergence of some capitalism at the expense on it's Communism because....even they know capitalism is better!)

The ways in which it's been implemented have generally been bad,

"generally"?
Just a few generally violent bloody revolutions fresh in the minds and media of the early 1900's?

......but it's not threatening.

Millions of murdered Russians and East Europeans are against you on that.
But I think you meant Communism as a concept.
Like it's definition written down on a piece of paper.

Any threat posed by Communism is entirely in your own head.

I always find the suppression of the individual a threat.

[ur-monkey]

Nice to be around, Avatar - thanks!

Capitalism also has its risks, as we are learning from the global consequences of unsustainable development and expansion of the world's economy. The wants of the individual being more sacrosanct than even the wellbeing of the environment or our legacy for future generations of humankind.

Capitalism is a socio-economic gear that has worked wonders in the development of mankind. But we should beware considering it the only viable gear as the world becomes smaller, more crowded and more competitive. Its doctrines will have to evolve out of necessity.

I'm not advocating something so binary as an either/or attitude, we need to grow past that simplicity of socio-economic implementation. I'd rather we learned positive lessons from the unsuccessful practical implementation of communist ideology as well as being open-minded about the very real disadvantages of capitalism we are starting to reap, and maybe come up with some sort of third option. Let's not throw out every baby with the bathwater.

Thatcher famously said 'there's no such thing as society'. Were that true - were she as shrewd a judge of the human condition as she would like to have thought - homo sapiens would have been gobbled up on the savannah plains of sub-saharan Africa tens of thousands of years ago.

If you steer the boat with just one oar, you end up going round in circles. Doesn't matter if it's the left oar or the right.

[CovenantJr]

"True threat"? It's only bloody Communism. There is nothing innately wrong with Communism, still less socialism.

Except that it's the polar opposite of capitalism.
By definition the two can't work together.
(China *allows* or suffers the emergence of some capitalism at the expense on it's Communism because....even they know capitalism is better!)

The ways in which it's been implemented have generally been bad,

"generally"?
Just a few generally violent bloody revolutions fresh in the minds and media of the early 1900's?

......but it's not threatening.

Millions of murdered Russians and East Europeans are against you on that.
But I think you meant Communism as a concept.
Like it's definition written down on a piece of paper.

There's a HUGE difference between Communism and the people who attempt to practice it. The millions of dead and the bloody revolutions were caused by the people, not by Communism. It's much the same as the pro-firearms argument, I suppose: a weapon (or political model) is only as evil as the use it's put to.

Any threat posed by Communism is entirely in your own head.

I always find the suppression of the individual a threat.

On this, I'd point out that Communism, as a theory or model, isn't about suppression of the individual; it's about suppression of selfishness.

[Avatar]

If you steer the boat with just one oar, you end up going round in circles. Doesn't matter if it's the left oar or the right.

It's much the same as the pro-firearms argument, I suppose: a weapon (or political model) is only as evil as the use it's put to.

Agreed.

--A

[CovenantJr]

Spoiler

Having said that, I'm anti-firearms.

[High Lord Tolkien]

Spoiler

Having said that, I'm anti-firearms.

Spoiler

So were Stalin and Mao.

[Avatar]

For obvious reasons.

--A

[Atrium]

What about the millions of victims of capitalism? Those who died of starvation because of bad politics? Or those who died in diseases that could easily have been cured? Or those who fought the wars that the capitalists benefited from?

Why do we only hear about the victims of communism?