Was Ernest Hemingway A Fellow Traveller Or "Useful Idiot"?
Ciceroii
He is the Cuban Marxist's favorite American and we have to wonder
why as Castro and his Communists hate America and its capitalist system.
Hemingway, in his great novel, "For Whom the Bell Tolls" is definitely on side
with the leftist guerrillas, who were taking orders from Stalin's NKVD in fighting against
Franco's Falange Nationalists. Hemingway covered the Spanish Civil War
as a newspaper correspondent so that he must have known what was really going on.
George Orwell certainly did, as we see from "Homage to Catalonia" and some of
his essays. To Orwell the war was largely a struggle between the Soviet socialists
on the one side and the Spanish, German and Italian socialists (call them Fascists if
you want) on the other, but there was not much difference between them in Orwell's opinion.
In his book, however, most of his criticism is directed against the Stalinists.
To Hemingway it was a good guys (Republican) versus bad guys (Nationalists) dichotomy.
He never even hints that the so-called good guys are taking orders either directly or
indirectly from the Communists and spends much of his commentary railing against
those awful Fascists.
Either Hemingway was stupid or he was disingenuous in his ideological bias in the novel.
It seems to be the latter as now we learn that one of Senator Joseph McCarthy's first targets in his anti-communist crusade of the late '40s and early '50s was one, Gustavo
Duran,
who turned out to be not only a Communist, working
in the U.S. State Department in 1946, but a central figure in Stalin's cold-blooded purge of
Trotkyites, socialist, and anarchist allies during the Spanish Civil War. Duran had been an
officer in SIM, the Spanish Communist secret police that conducted many of the arrests and
mass shootings. Some of these executions were of gullible American and Canadian socialists or
Communists who went to Spain in 1936 as part of the Mackenzie-Papinear or Lincoln
volunteer brigades
Now guess how Duran got to American. When Franco's forces, fortunately for the West,
won the war and took over Spain, Duran fled to the U.S. where Ernest Hemingway convinced
the American ambassador to Cuba, Spuille Braden, to hire him as an assistant. Someone in
Army Intelligence told Braden about Duran's sordid past, but Braden brushed their warnings
aside. Naturally enough, as Braden was a Roosevelt New Deal appointee. Later Braden brought
Duran back to the U.S. where he got him the job in State. In 1946 Duran left the State
Department and took a job at the U,N. which was full of Communists and their supporters.
Duran was a small fish for McCarthy's loyalty PIC investigations but the hostile, "liberal"
Democrat Truman was president at the time and he denied Congress all access to FBI
and other security files, even though the Democrats controlled both
Congress and the Tydings Commission on which McCarthy was only an minority member.
Rich Egan
Ciceroii <cice...@home.com> wrote in message
news:387E756B...@home.com...
> Hemingway has certainly been canonized by Castro in Cuba.
> He is the Cuban Marxist's favorite American and we have to wonder
> why as Castro and his Communists hate America and its capitalist system.
I can only say that Castro finds Hemingway and his "mystique" to be
politically useful , Just as the Russians used Mark Twain . As I
understand it the most glorified part of Hemingway , from the Cuban
perspective is his Novel " The Old Man and the Sea " .
>
> Hemingway, in his great novel, "For Whom the Bell Tolls" is definitely on
side
> with the leftist guerrillas, who were taking orders from Stalin's NKVD in
fighting against
> Franco's Falange Nationalists. Hemingway covered the Spanish Civil War
> as a newspaper correspondent so that he must have known what was really
going on.
Place this in the context of the Times . There were many Americans
and British who went to Spain in those years . Regrettably a memorial
was just erected here in the States for the "brave Men of the Abraham
Lincoln Brigade " Something that even Lincoln would have scorned ,
no doubt.
> George Orwell certainly did, as we see from "Homage to Catalonia" and some
of
> his essays. To Orwell the war was largely a struggle between the Soviet
socialists
> on the one side and the Spanish, German and Italian socialists (call them
Fascists if
> you want) on the other, but there was not much difference between them in
Orwell's opinion.
Orwell was Right about this , But it's taken the world fifty years
to catch up to Orwell in their thinking . There is too much German -
Bad ? Russia -Good thinking out there . Orwell was right there ,
He went in with high hopes and got his eyes opened . His two
works "animal Farm " and "1984" have become prophesies.
> In his book, however, most of his criticism is directed against the
Stalinists.
> To Hemingway it was a good guys (Republican) versus bad guys
(Nationalists) dichotomy.
> He never even hints that the so-called good guys are taking orders either
directly or
> indirectly from the Communists and spends much of his commentary railing
against
> those awful Fascists.
This Russia - Good / German -bad belief was prevalent in those times
Also This was the 'shot across the bows ' for Nationalists . Nationalism
and Patriotism being portrayed as evil is standard Party Line for " One
Worlders" of those times . It's much worse today . The relenntless march
toward world domination is being aided by placing anything racial , enthnic.
or national in a negative light .
Why doesn't this surprise me ?
>
> Duran was a small fish for McCarthy's loyalty PIC investigations but the
hostile, "liberal"
> Democrat Truman was president at the time and he denied Congress all
access to FBI
> and other security files, even though the Democrats controlled both
> Congress and the Tydings Commission on which McCarthy was only an minority
member.
Nothing surprising here either !
Rich
Sic Semper Tyrannis
>
Ciceroii
Rich Egan wrote:
> Ciceroii <cice...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:387E756B...@home.com...
> > Hemingway has certainly been canonized by Castro in Cuba.
> > He is the Cuban Marxist's favorite American and we have to wonder
> > why as Castro and his Communists hate America and its capitalist system.
>
> Although Hemingway, to his credit, keeps a rather objective political perspective
in his novels, unlike some contemporaries such as John Steinbeck or Upton Sinclair,
Dos Passos etc., he did live in Paris for several years after WW I. And Paris at that
time was a sanctuary for "liberal" and crypto-communist writers and artists, not just disaffected
American expatriates but for homegrown Reds like Sartre, Gide, Camus, Heidegger
(a national socialist) etc. So Hemingway, an existentialist, (even though he denied it)
must have come under their influence to some
degree. But he was prudent enough to keep his own ideological propensities (probably
very much to the Left) out of his great works. Steinbeck did not do this in his great opus,
"The Grapes of Wrath";thus this novel is marred by his Marxist predilections and bias.
>
Alex Magdaleno
communist in his world view. Perhaps macaroni brain wished we could go back
to the turn of the century when the peons knew their place.
Ciceroii <cice...@home.com> wrote in message
news:387F5457...@home.com...
RG Naylor
> news:387E756B...@home.com...
Steinbeck did not do this in his great opus, "The Grapes of Wrath";thus
this novel is marred by his Marxist predilections and bias.
One can say it a different way, he told it like it WAS. That's why the book
was banned from Kern County and ritualistically burned. Are you going to
deny what happened to the "Okies" that migrated to California trying to earn
a living doing back breaking work for starvation wages? What about the
police brutality and murder? People died because landowners were greedy,
and afraid of losing what they had. If exposing that constitutes "Marxist
predilections and bias", I'll take it any day over fascist materialism.
RG Naylor
Ciceroii
RG Naylor wrote:
Contrast what happened to the Oakies in the "dirty thirties" in California to the atrocities
and genocides or Lenin's Soviet Union in the 1920s or Stalin's in the 1930s. Yet, Steinbeck
seemed to be saying that the Marxists or Reds had a more compassionate system, even
though tens of millions of innocent civilians were murdered in Russia and China. Read "The
Black Book of Communism" to learn all about the Marxist terror.
Incidentally many of those Oakies and their children became the landholders in California
from the 1950s until the present. They have in turn been accused of exploiting the Mexican
immigrant farm workers.
David Salvador Flores
>This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>--------------7FBA2A4C06041767757C94E1
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>
>
>RG Naylor wrote:
>
>> Ciceroii <cice...@home.com> wrote in message
>> > news:387E756B...@home.com...
>>
>> Steinbeck did not do this in his great opus, "The Grapes of Wrath";thus
>> this novel is marred by his Marxist predilections and bias.
>>
>> One can say it a different way, he told it like it WAS. That's why the book
>> was banned from Kern County and ritualistically burned. Are you going to
>> deny what happened to the "Okies" that migrated to California trying to earn
>> a living doing back breaking work for starvation wages? What about the
>> police brutality and murder? People died because landowners were greedy,
>> and afraid of losing what they had. If exposing that constitutes "Marxist
>> predilections and bias", I'll take it any day over fascist materialism.
>>
>> RG Naylor
>
> Contrast what happened to the Oakies in the "dirty thirties" in California to the atrocities
> and genocides or Lenin's Soviet Union in the 1920s or Stalin's in the 1930s. Yet, Steinbeck
> seemed to be saying that the Marxists or Reds had a more compassionate system, even
> though tens of millions of innocent civilians were murdered in Russia and China. Read "The
> Black Book of Communism" to learn all about the Marxist terror.
"Seemed?" really? Can you quote a single line of text from _The Grapes of
Wrath_ where Steinbeck extols the virtues of Stalinism?
Like most conservatives, Ciceroii, you fear anything that contradicts your
rosy, unrealistic world-view, labelling everything with which you disagree
as "communistic" no matter how firmly based on historical realities it is.
-Dave
Alex Magdaleno
are treated worse? Macaroni brain strikes again. And exactly on what page
of the Grapes of Wrath does he say that the marxist have a better system.?
Ciceroii <cice...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3880D9BD...@home.com...
Ciceroii
David Salvador Flores wrote:
> In article <3880D9BD...@home.com>, Ciceroii <cice...@home.com> wrote:
> >This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
> >--------------7FBA2A4C06041767757C94E1
> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> >
> >
> >
> >RG Naylor wrote:
> >
> >> Ciceroii <cice...@home.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:387E756B...@home.com...
> >>
> >> Steinbeck did not do this in his great opus, "The Grapes of Wrath";thus
> >> this novel is marred by his Marxist predilections and bias.
> >>
> >> One can say it a different way, he told it like it WAS. That's why the book
> >> was banned from Kern County and ritualistically burned. Are you going to
> >> deny what happened to the "Okies" that migrated to California trying to earn
> >> a living doing back breaking work for starvation wages? What about the
> >> police brutality and murder? People died because landowners were greedy,
> >> and afraid of losing what they had. If exposing that constitutes "Marxist
> >> predilections and bias", I'll take it any day over fascist materialism.
> >>
> >> RG Naylor
> >
> > Contrast what happened to the Oakies in the "dirty thirties" in California to the atrocities
> > and genocides or Lenin's Soviet Union in the 1920s or Stalin's in the 1930s. Yet, Steinbeck
> > seemed to be saying that the Marxists or Reds had a more compassionate system, even
> > though tens of millions of innocent civilians were murdered in Russia and China. Read "The
> > Black Book of Communism" to learn all about the Marxist terror.
>
> "Seemed?" really? Can you quote a single line of text from _The Grapes of
> Wrath_ where Steinbeck extols the virtues of Stalinism?
Steinbeck was so far to the left that his own father practically disowned him.
Almost all his major works romanticize the poor, the losers in life, and these characters
ignorantly blame the American capitalist system for their woes. The drought and the dust
bowl were acts of God. Yet Steinbeck blames Hoover and praises Roosevelt's New Deal.
Incidentally,most of Steinbeck's works were very popular with
the commissars in the Soviet Union, because
they always put the U.S and the capitalist system in a bad light.
>
>
> Like most conservatives, Ciceroii, you fear anything that contradicts your
> rosy, unrealistic world-view, labelling everything with which you disagree
> as "communistic" no matter how firmly based on historical realities it is.
Just what "historical realities" are you referring to?
>
>
> -Dave
David Salvador Flores
>This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
Gosh, his own father practically disowned him. He *must* have been an
apologist for Stalin, then.
> Almost all his major works romanticize the poor,
Gosh, he aknowledges the reality of poverty in the depression era USA, he
*must* be a Stalinist sympathiser.
the losers in life, and these characters
> ignorantly blame the American capitalist system for their woes.
Gosh, the US economy tanks, thousands upon thousands are left jobless,
thousands more are exploited mercilessly in California fruit farms, and
these poor bastards dare criticize our economic system. They *must* be
Stalinists.
The drought and the dust
> bowl were acts of God. Yet Steinbeck blames Hoover and praises Roosevelt's New Deal.
Gosh, Steinbeck praises Roosevelt and derides Hoover, he *must* be a
Stalinist sympathiser.
>
> Incidentally,most of Steinbeck's works were very popular with
> the commissars in the Soviet Union, because
> they always put the U.S and the capitalist system in a bad light.
Gee, it couldn't be because the US Capitalist economy actually *had*
suffered a major economic crisis that put thousands upo thousands out of
work and greatly increased mass suffering, could it?
>
>>
>>
>> Like most conservatives, Ciceroii, you fear anything that contradicts your
>> rosy, unrealistic world-view, labelling everything with which you disagree
>> as "communistic" no matter how firmly based on historical realities it is.
>
> Just what "historical realities" are you referring to?
Oh, I dunno... like maybe the GREAT DEPRESSION that Steinbeck is writing
about in the _Grapes of Wrath_!?
Sheez, it's amazing Ciceroii. It's become clear to me that if you and your
ilk were ever handed the keys to the kingdom, as it were, you'd institute
a repressive regime just as vicious and intolerant as that of the most
backward, totalitarian communist states. Your literary prejudices remind
me of nothing so much as old Soviet news reports extolling record wheat
harvests in Georgia while summarily diregarding the rest of the economy
which is crumbling. I could see you promoting a "Capitalist Realism" just
as ludicrous and artistically worthless as the "Socialist Realism" that
the old Soviet Union promoted within her borders.
-Dave
(By the way, your starling lack of specificity with respect to _The Grapes
of Wrath_ leads me to believe that it's just another one of the many books
you've never read, but still insist upon criticizing.)
Ciceroii
David Salvador Flores wrote:
> >> > Contrast what happened to the Okies in the "dirty thirties" in California to the atrocities
> >> > and genocides or Lenin's Soviet Union in the 1920s or Stalin's in the 1930s. Yet, Steinbeck
> >> > seemed to be saying that the Marxists or Reds had a more compassionate system, even
> >> > though tens of millions of innocent civilians were murdered in Russia and China. Read "The
> >> > Black Book of Communism" to learn all about the Marxist terror.
> >>
> >> "Seemed?" really? Can you quote a single line of text from _The Grapes of
> >> Wrath_ where Steinbeck extols the virtues of Stalinism? He refers to it as Marxism.
> >
> > Steinbeck was so far to the left that his own father practically disowned him.
>
> Gosh, his own father practically disowned him. He *must* have been an
> apologist for Stalin, then.
Why do you say this? You are being silly. His father just did not agree with his leftist,
hate-America bias. He did not approve of the socialist ideology that suffused much of his writing.
>
>
> > Almost all his major works romanticize the poor,
>
> Gosh, he aknowledges the reality of poverty in the depression era USA, he
> *must* be a Stalinist sympathiser. No, but it was not the poor and the losers
that made America the premier nation in the world.
Again I am not implying that at all. Simply that Steinbeck wrote a very tendentious
and biased novel, which the "liberal" hate-America teachers and intellectuals tried
to turn into a masterpiece, when it was really just a pretty-good potboiler.
>
>
> the losers in life, and these characters
> > ignorantly blame the American capitalist system for their woes.
>
> Gosh, the US economy tanks, thousands upon thousands are left jobless,
But it was the U.S. government and the Federal Reserve Board that turned a
business-cycle panic and recession into a depression. The government raised interest
rates, tightened the money supply and caused the massive bank failures. Milton Friedman
studied the situation very thoroughly and this was his conclusion--the government was mainly
at fault.
>
> thousands more are exploited mercilessly in California fruit farms, and
> these poor bastards dare criticize our economic system. They *must* be
> Stalinists. (I never said that, Dave. Some of their leaders no doubt were).
> Not necessarily Marxists, but they were irrationallly anti-capitalist. Capitalism was
not to blame. The capitalist system had given the the Americans over one hundred years
of spectacular economic growth. Not everyone benefited equally, but America's poor were
still better off than the poor of the rest of the world, with perhaps a few exceptions.
> The drought and the dust
> > bowl were acts of God. Yet Steinbeck blames Hoover and praises Roosevelt's New Deal.
>
> Gosh, Steinbeck praises Roosevelt and derides Hoover, he *must* be a
> Stalinist sympathiser. (And you sound like a simpleton repeating this stupid refrain).
> We can have no doubt that Steinbeck's attitude was not much different from that
of the following American "liberal" magazines, "The New Republic" and "The Nation" in
the 1930s. He no doubt read them at one time or another; if he did he would have agreed
with their ideology.
"Two current American Democrat and Leftist magazines, “The New Republic” and “The Nation” have a very shameful history. “They latched onto socialism (communism) in the
1930s and never let go”, writes Arthur Herman , the author of “The Idea of Decline in Western History”. They argued that Roosevelt’s New Deal liberalism and communism were
not so different from each other after all. Both shared a belief in central planning …Roosevelt’s New Deal was directly equated with Stalin’s Five Year Plan. A
Leading New Republic writer at the time, F. L. Schumann proclaimed enthusiastically in the magazine’s pages that “Underneath their skin communism and liberalism are blood
brothers—precisely what McCarthy and others a decade later would claim albeit in a different context".
>
> > Incidentally,most of Steinbeck's works were very popular with
> > the commissars in the Soviet Union, because
> > they always put the U.S and the capitalist system in a bad light.
>
> Gee, it couldn't be because the US Capitalist economy actually *had*
> suffered a major economic crisis that put thousands upo thousands out of
> work and greatly increased mass suffering, could it?
No, it would be more likely that they saw a opportunity to subvert their great American enemy from
within. They had 70,000 Americans members of the Communist party and had already infiltrated
the federal government and the labor unions. Steinbeck's novel was very good anti-American
and anti-capitalist propaganda for them. The Marxists loved it.
> >>
> >> Like most conservatives, Ciceroii, you fear anything that contradicts your
> >> rosy, ( I didn't think it was that rosy) unrealistic world-view, labelling everything with which you disagree
> >> as "communistic" no matter how firmly based on historical realities it is.
> >
> > Just what "historical realities" are you referring to?
>
> Oh, I dunno... like maybe the GREAT DEPRESSION that Steinbeck is writing
> about in the _Grapes of Wrath_!?
The Great Depression happened. But Hemingway, Faulkner, Tennessee Williams
and others did not write
didactic, propagandistic novels about it. They did not take a ideological
biased, anti-American position on it as Steinbeck did.
Even playwright Arthur Miller, author of "Death of a Salesman", a former member of the Communist
Party, did not write subversive books attacking so flagrantly the American system as Steinbeck did.
With Steinbeck, if you were rich, even just comfortably middle class you were evil; if you
you were poor you were, ipso facto, good--at least in "The Grapes of Wrath", "The Pearl" and
"Of Mice and Men".
> Sheez, it's amazing Ciceroii. It's become clear to me that if you and your
> ilk were ever handed the keys to the kingdom, as it were, you'd institute
> a repressive regime just as vicious and intolerant as that of the most
> backward, totalitarian communist states.
Aren't you being rather excessive here. Do you presume to know me that well?
> Your literary prejudices reminds
> me of nothing so much as old Soviet news reports extolling record wheat
> harvests in Georgia while summarily diregarding (sic) the rest of the economy
> which is crumbling. I could see you promoting a "Capitalist Realism" just
> as ludicrous and artistically worthless as the "Socialist Realism" that
> the old Soviet Union promoted within her borders.
> You are being silly. What you are saying in your last paragraph is not even worth
commenting on. I'm not sure Steinbeck would have gone has far as Isadora Duncan
in her adulation of Marxist-Leninism but many American "liberals" of the same period would have,
and did.
"Others loved themselves, money, theories, power: Lenin loved his fellow men. . . . Lenin was God, as Christ was God, because God is Love and Christ and Lenin were all
Love!"
Isadora Duncan (1878–1927), U.S. dancer. From the first chapter of her memoirs, dictated in Berlin in 1924 but never completed (published in This Quarter, Paris, Autumn
1929).
Lenin and Stalin together counted their victims of innocent civilians in the tens of millions.
That's what Steinbeck should have been writing about instead of bad mouthing his own
country because it was capitalist and he was a socialist.
>
Dave
Rich Egan
RG Naylor <RGNa...@cableone.net> wrote in message
news:s81io1...@corp.supernews.com...
> Ciceroii <cice...@home.com> wrote in message
> > news:387E756B...@home.com...
>
> Steinbeck did not do this in his great opus, "The Grapes of Wrath";thus
> this novel is marred by his Marxist predilections and bias.
Marred is an understatement !
>
> One can say it a different way, he told it like it WAS. That's why the
book
> was banned from Kern County and ritualistically burned.
I went through the town of Weed Patch in Kern County . I think I underestand
their
anger.
>Are you going to
> deny what happened to the "Okies" that migrated to California trying to
earn
> a living doing back breaking work for starvation wages? What about the
> police brutality and murder?
Really ? how do we know ? Because Steinbeck told us so . How much
corroborating evidenceis there . It all comes through his eyes .
People died because landowners were greedy,
> and afraid of losing what they had.
Look, Those landowners were looking at the Okies who had lost what they had
.
The Okies weren't just homeless people who appeared one day out of nowhere,
They were people who'd lost everything . That's a hell of an object lesson !
>If exposing that constitutes "Marxist
> predilections and bias", I'll take it any day over fascist materialism.
It wasn't the exposing of it that was so bad , it was the solutions proposed
,
namely total government ownership that we object to .
Rich
Sic Semper Tyrannis
>
> RG Naylor
>
>
RG Naylor
Rich Egan <rich...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:862b0c$vjr$3...@nntp2.atl.mindspring.net...
> > Steinbeck did not do this in his great opus, "The Grapes of Wrath";thus
> > this novel is marred by his Marxist predilections and bias.
>
> Marred is an understatement !
> >
> > One can say it a different way, he told it like it WAS. That's why the
> book was banned from Kern County and ritualistically burned.
>
> I went through the town of Weed Patch in Kern County . I think I
underestand
> their anger.
You don't explain this...
Are you going to deny what happened to the "Okies" that migrated to
California trying to earn
a living doing back breaking work for starvation wages? What about the
police brutality and murder?
Really ? how do we know ? Because Steinbeck told us so . How much
> corroborating evidenceis there . It all comes through his eyes .
No, not just because Steinbeck told us so. You sound like those
anti-semites who question the veracity of the holocaust. All you have to do
is question something that's common knowledge, and you've got people
doubting it.
People died because landowners were greedy,
and afraid of losing what they had.
>
> Look, Those landowners were looking at the Okies who had lost what they
had
Yeah, so what? So this excuses what happened?
.
> The Okies weren't just homeless people who appeared one day out of
nowhere,
> They were people who'd lost everything . That's a hell of an object lesson
!
>
> >If exposing that constitutes "Marxist
> > predilections and bias", I'll take it any day over fascist materialism.
>
It wasn't the exposing of it that was so bad , it was the solutions
proposed
You won't even acknowledge that the atrocities happened, and now you're
denying that claiming the problem was the solutions proposed. They were the
only realistic proposals out there. The opposition certainly didn't care
enough to look for solutions.
namely total government ownership that we object to .
That's not the solution he came up with, and you know it. You have to
exaggerate in order to gain sympathizers.
RG Naylor
sid9
> Steinbeck was a socialist propagandist. He was biased. No doubt
the Okies
> had a hard time of it. There was a Depression and a great drought.
However,
> the farmers of California were fighting for their economic
survival also. They resented
> these unneeded migrant workers moving into their territory at the
time. A few people
> may have been killed in confrontations.
>
> But Lenin and Stalin killed tens of millions of Russian and
Ukrainian citizens.
> What did Steinbeck say about that? Nothing. He has some of his
characters state that
> perhaps the Reds have a fairer system than the U.S.
> Steinbeck indirectly and through his characters
> blames capitalism and President Hoover for most of the suffering.
But Roosevelt had already
> been in power seven years, and his New Deal was not working. What
did Steinbeck
> say about that? Nothing again.
>
> I wasn't alive at the time but Nobel economist Milton Friedman
> blames, not capitalism market system for the economic disaster,
> but the U.S. government
> and especially the Federal Reserve Board for raising
> interest rates and tightening the money supply, which aggravated
the situation and caused
> massive bank failures. And it was the failure of the banking
system that caused the Depression.
>
> The Fed was independent of Hoover, so it was not this president's
fault. The Fed had been created
> in 1913, I believe, and was just one more government institution
interfering with the market
> system. Steinbeck knew fuck-all about economics. He was not
objective in this novel of
> social protest, and it is not that particularly well-written. It
has had wide acclaim only because
> it has been popular with "liberal" school teachers and academics
as an anti-capitalist work.
>
Ciceroii
RG Naylor wrote:
> Rich Egan <rich...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:862b0c$vjr$3...@nntp2.atl.mindspring.net...
> > > Steinbeck did not do this in his great opus, "The Grapes of Wrath";thus
> > > this novel is marred by his Marxist predilections and bias.
> >
> > Marred is an understatement !
> > >
> > > One can say it a different way, he told it like it WAS.
>> Steinbeck was a socialist propagandist. He was biased. No doubt the Okies
RG Naylor
> >> Steinbeck was a socialist propagandist.
If this is true, so what? Throughout history, you either have right wing
propaganda, or left wing propaganda, never an honest median. Using that
word doesn't excuse its use on either side of the spectrum.
They resented these unneeded migrant workers moving into their territory at
the time. A few people
may have been killed in confrontations.
"Territory"? You make it sound like these people were an army invading
another country. They had a right to be in California, because it's a FREE
COUNTRY. They were "unneeded" until the landowners found out how
profitable it was to exploit them.
>
But Lenin and Stalin killed tens of millions of Russian and Ukrainian
citizens What did Steinbeck say about that? Nothing.
Lenin and Stalin's got nothing to do with depression era California. I said
it before, and I'll say it again: He told it like it WAS, PERIOD.
RG Naylor
Rich Egan
>
> Rich Egan <rich...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:862b0c$vjr$3...@nntp2.atl.mindspring.net...
> > > Steinbeck did not do this in his great opus, "The Grapes of
Wrath";thus
> > > this novel is marred by his Marxist predilections and bias.
> >
> > Marred is an understatement !
> > >
the
> > book was banned from Kern County and ritualistically burned.
> >
> > I went through the town of Weed Patch in Kern County . I think I
> underestand
> > their anger.
>
> You don't explain this...
> Are you going to deny what happened to the "Okies" that migrated to
> California trying to earn
> a living doing back breaking work for starvation wages? What about the
> police brutality and murder?
What about it ? I can't say it didn't happen . In those days cops were
more vicious. To make the Okies the only victims is absurd . The police
Brutality and the murder were only parts of a story . Don't take it too
literally. The problem is that except for Steinbeck's novel and some
Government project Photographers , we really don't know much
about the dust bowl and the migration into California. But as another
poster said . The Okies of the thirties became the landholders of the
present . But in their own time they were regarded as Human locusts
descending on a place that neither needed or wanted them .
>
> > Really ? how do we know ? Because Steinbeck told us so . How much
> > corroborating evidenceis there . It all comes through his eyes .
>
> No, not just because Steinbeck told us so. You sound like those
> anti-semites who question the veracity of the holocaust. All you have to
do
> is question something that's common knowledge, and you've got people
> doubting it.
Common knowledge is usually wrong . It's an opinion built on a
spurious idea or prejudice . Like hating landowners as greedy .
Once you have that mindset , then everyone else becomes a
victim of the "Evil" landowner . All Fault reverts to him.
> People died because landowners were greedy,
> and afraid of losing what they had.
> >
> > Look, Those landowners were looking at the Okies who had lost what they
> had
>
> Yeah, so what? So this excuses what happened?
What happened ? I'm not talking about Steinbeck's fiction here .
> .
> > The Okies weren't just homeless people who appeared one day out of
> nowhere,
> > They were people who'd lost everything . That's a hell of an object
lesson
> !
> >
> > >If exposing that constitutes "Marxist
> > > predilections and bias", I'll take it any day over fascist
materialism.
> >
> It wasn't the exposing of it that was so bad , it was the solutions
> proposed
>
> You won't even acknowledge that the atrocities happened, and now you're
> denying that claiming the problem was the solutions proposed. They were
the
> only realistic proposals out there. The opposition certainly didn't care
> enough to look for solutions.
What atrocities ? Did a few workers get beaten up ? Probably .
People got beaten by cops all over America in the thirties . Yard dicks
local cops , militia , State cops , They all did their beating . Go read
about the the Hobo Jungles . It was a much tougher time . You're
making it sound like the Okies were singled out for special treatment,
They weren't.
>
> namely total government ownership that we object to .
>
> That's not the solution he came up with, and you know it. You have to
> exaggerate in order to gain sympathizers.
When I first saw this movie . I knew I was looking at socialist
propaganda . I remain convinced .
>
> RG Naylor
>
>
>
David Salvador Flores
>This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>
>
>
>David Salvador Flores wrote:
>> >> >> RG Naylor
>> >> >
>> >> > Contrast what happened to the Okies in the "dirty thirties" in California to the atrocities
>> >> > and genocides or Lenin's Soviet Union in the 1920s or Stalin's in the 1930s. Yet, Steinbeck
>> >> > seemed to be saying that the Marxists or Reds had a more compassionate system, even
>> >> > though tens of millions of innocent civilians were murdered in Russia and China. Read "The
>> >> > Black Book of Communism" to learn all about the Marxist terror.
>> >>
>> >> "Seemed?" really? Can you quote a single line of text from _The Grapes of
>> >> Wrath_ where Steinbeck extols the virtues of Stalinism? He refers to it as Marxism.
>> >
>> > Steinbeck was so far to the left that his own father practically disowned him.
>>
>> Gosh, his own father practically disowned him. He *must* have been an
>> apologist for Stalin, then.
>
> Why do you say this? You are being silly.
Because I asked you for proof that Steinbeck was a Stalinist and that's
how you responded, Ciceroii. It was you who is being silly.
His father just did not agree with his leftist,
> hate-America bias. He did not approve of the socialist ideology that suffused much of his writing.
So you agree that this has nothing to do with Steinbeck's supposed
Stalininsm. So why did you bring it up?
>
>>
>>
>> > Almost all his major works romanticize the poor,
>>
>> Gosh, he aknowledges the reality of poverty in the depression era USA, he
>> *must* be a Stalinist sympathiser.
> No,
So again you acknowledge that your responses were vacuous.
but it was not the poor and the losers
>
> that made America the premier nation in the world.
>
> Again I am not implying that at all. Simply that Steinbeck wrote a very tendentious
> and biased novel, which the "liberal" hate-America teachers and intellectuals tried
> to turn into a masterpiece, when it was really just a pretty-good potboiler.
The judgment of history is on Steinbeck's side. Your berating _The Grapes
of Wrath_ will hardly modify its position as the finest expression of
depression era hardships ever penned.
>
>>
>>
>> the losers in life, and these characters
>> > ignorantly blame the American capitalist system for their woes.
>>
>> Gosh, the US economy tanks, thousands upon thousands are left jobless,
>
> But it was the U.S. government and the Federal Reserve Board that turned a
> business-cycle panic and recession into a depression. The government raised interest
> rates, tightened the money supply and caused the massive bank failures. Milton Friedman
> studied the situation very thoroughly and this was his conclusion--the government was mainly
> at fault.
>
>>
>> thousands more are exploited mercilessly in California fruit farms, and
>> these poor bastards dare criticize our economic system. They *must* be
>> Stalinists. (I never said that, Dave. Some of their leaders no doubt were).
>
>> Not necessarily Marxists, but they were irrationallly anti-capitalist. Capitalism was
>
> not to blame. The capitalist system had given the the Americans over one hundred years
> of spectacular economic growth.
And a half-dozen depressions already, and spectacular inequalities in
wealth and income distribution.
Not everyone benefited equally, but America's poor were
> still better off than the poor of the rest of the world, with perhaps a few exceptions.
That's small comfort to a woman whose child is dying from malnutrition.
>
>> The drought and the dust
>> > bowl were acts of God. Yet Steinbeck blames Hoover and praises Roosevelt's New Deal.
>>
>> Gosh, Steinbeck praises Roosevelt and derides Hoover, he *must* be a
>> Stalinist sympathiser.
> (And you sound like a simpleton repeating this stupid refrain).
It's getting on your nerves isn't is Cicerooii, that I can point out how
moronic your responses were by simply repeating them verbatim.
>
>> We can have no doubt that Steinbeck's attitude was not much different from that
>
> of the following American "liberal" magazines, "The New Republic" and "The Nation" in
> the 1930s. He no doubt read them at one time or another; if he did he would have agreed
> with their ideology.
No doubt, no doubt, no doubt. I think it speaks to your intellectual
shallowness that I ask you for proof that Steinbeck's _Grapes of Wrath_ is
an apology for Stalinisn, and you can only come back with quotes from _The
Nation_ and the _New Republic_ that have nothing whatsoever to do with
Steinbeck.
>
>"Two current American Democrat and Leftist magazines, “The New Republic” and “The Nation” have a very shameful history. “They latched onto socialism (communism) in the
>1930s and never let go”, writes Arthur Herman , the author of “The Idea of Decline in Western History”. They argued that Roosevelt’s New Deal liberalism and communism were
>not so different from each other after all. Both shared a belief in central planning …Roosevelt’s New Deal was directly equated with Stalin’s Five Year Plan. A
>Leading New Republic writer at the time, F. L. Schumann proclaimed enthusiastically in the magazine’s pages that “Underneath their skin communism and liberalism are blood
>brothers—precisely what McCarthy and others a decade later would claim albeit in a different context".
Hell, you're not even quoting from the magazines, but rather from some
right-wing ideologue's take on them.
>
>>
>> > Incidentally,most of Steinbeck's works were very popular with
>> > the commissars in the Soviet Union, because
>> > they always put the U.S and the capitalist system in a bad light.
>>
>> Gee, it couldn't be because the US Capitalist economy actually *had*
>> suffered a major economic crisis that put thousands upo thousands out of
>> work and greatly increased mass suffering, could it?
>
> No, it would be more likely that they saw a opportunity to subvert their great American enemy from
> within. They had 70,000 Americans members of the Communist party and had already infiltrated
> the federal government and the labor unions. Steinbeck's novel was very good anti-American
> and anti-capitalist propaganda for them. The Marxists loved it.
See, this is your problem Ciceroii. You think that the Communist party's
ranks had swelled beacuse of writers and magazines. The communst party's
ranks had swelled because hundredds of thousands were living in absolute,
desperate poverty. Steinbeck writes about that poverty, and you think that
makes him a Stalinist. You' re a joke, Ciceroii.
>
>> >>
>> >> Like most conservatives, Ciceroii, you fear anything that contradicts your
>> >> rosy, ( I didn't think it was that rosy) unrealistic world-view, labelling everything with which you disagree
>> >> as "communistic" no matter how firmly based on historical realities it is.
>> >
>> > Just what "historical realities" are you referring to?
>>
>> Oh, I dunno... like maybe the GREAT DEPRESSION that Steinbeck is writing
>> about in the _Grapes of Wrath_!?
>
> The Great Depression happened. But Hemingway, Faulkner, Tennessee Williams
> and others did not write
> didactic, propagandistic novels about it. They did not take a ideological
> biased, anti-American position on it as Steinbeck did.
And Steinbeck never wrote about bullfights, or Yopnatokawa county, or
Southern gentility on the skids. Every writer treats the subjects that
move him most. What pisses you off is that Steinbeck *dared* to expose the
exploitation to which hundreds of thousands of Oklahoma farmers were
subjected during the depression. A typical ideologue, you'd rather hush up
those bits of history that expose your system's flaws. What a joke!
> Even playwright Arthur Miller, author of "Death of a Salesman", a former member of the Communist
> Party, did not write subversive books attacking so flagrantly the American system as Steinbeck did.
> With Steinbeck, if you were rich, even just comfortably middle class you were evil; if you
> you were poor you were, ipso facto, good--at least in "The Grapes of Wrath", "The Pearl" and
> "Of Mice and Men".
>
>> Sheez, it's amazing Ciceroii. It's become clear to me that if you and your
>> ilk were ever handed the keys to the kingdom, as it were, you'd institute
>> a repressive regime just as vicious and intolerant as that of the most
>> backward, totalitarian communist states.
>
> Aren't you being rather excessive here. Do you presume to know me that well?
I've been reading your stuff for a couple of moths here. I can spot a
Pinochet wannabe.
>
>> Your literary prejudices reminds
>> me of nothing so much as old Soviet news reports extolling record wheat
>> harvests in Georgia while summarily diregarding (sic) the rest of the economy
>> which is crumbling. I could see you promoting a "Capitalist Realism" just
>> as ludicrous and artistically worthless as the "Socialist Realism" that
>> the old Soviet Union promoted within her borders.
>
>> You are being silly. What you are saying in your last paragraph is not even worth
>
> commenting on. I'm not sure Steinbeck would have gone has far as Isadora Duncan
> in her adulation of Marxist-Leninism but many American "liberals" of the same period would have,
> and did.
Which liberals, exactly, extolled the literary virtues of Socailist
realism?
>
>
>"Others loved themselves, money, theories, power: Lenin loved his fellow men. . . . Lenin was God, as Christ was God, because God is Love and Christ and Lenin were all
>Love!"
>
>Isadora Duncan (1878–1927), U.S. dancer. From the first chapter of her memoirs, dictated in Berlin in 1924 but never completed (published in This Quarter, Paris, Autumn
>1929).
Funny, I ask Ciceroii for proof that Steinbeck was a Stalinist and he
gives me quotes from Isidora Duncan. Seriously Ciceroii, if you're going
for red herrings, at least find a quote where Duncan is talking about
Steinbeck or something.
>
>Lenin and Stalin together counted their victims of innocent civilians in the tens of millions.
>That's what Steinbeck should have been writing about instead of bad mouthing his own
>country because it was capitalist and he was a socialist.
>
Once again, Ciceroii would like the uglier parts of American history
covered up, hidden from view, made to dissappear. Steinbeck, according to
Ciceroii, should have been writing about Soviet Russia (a place he'd
never been, with people he'd never met) than describing the lives of real
people, suffering real hardships... real because he'd seen them with his
own eyes, because he lived and travelled with them, shared their bread and
heard of their suffering from their own mouths.
>
>
>
>
>>
>
>Dave
>
>--------------B0C7F7D18888B36B7360F83B
>Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
> name="ciceroii.vcf"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>Content-Description: Card for Ciceroii
>Content-Disposition: attachment;
> filename="ciceroii.vcf"
>
>begin:vcard
>n:;ciceroii
>x-mozilla-html:FALSE
>adr:;;;;;;
>version:2.1
>email;internet:cice...@home.com
>note;quoted-printable:Even men endowed with the intelligence of angels.=0D=0Acould not make socialism work.--Ludwig von Mises.=0D=0A=0D=0A=0D=0A=0D=0A
>fn:ciceroii
>end:vcard
>
>--------------B0C7F7D18888B36B7360F83B--
>
-Dave
Jerome Schroeder
> > Gosh, the US economy tanks, thousands upon thousands are left jobless,
>
> But it was the U.S. government and the Federal Reserve Board that
turned a
> business-cycle panic and recession into a depression. The government
raised interest
> rates, tightened the money supply and caused the massive bank failures.
Milton Friedman
> studied the situation very thoroughly and this was his conclusion--the
government was mainly
> at fault.
>
> not to blame. The capitalist system had given the the Americans over
one hundred years
> of spectacular economic growth. Not everyone benefited equally, but
America's poor were
> still better off than the poor of the rest of the world, with perhaps a
few exceptions.
>
You've obviously not visited neighborhoods and regions populated by the
poor.
> > The drought and the dust
> > > bowl were acts of God. Yet Steinbeck blames Hoover and praises
Roosevelt's New Deal.
The drought was, but the dust was the result of poor farming methods.
> >
> "Two current American Democrat and Leftist magazines, "The New Republic"
and "The Nation" have a very shameful history. "They latched onto socialism
(communism) in the
> 1930s and never let go", writes Arthur Herman , the author of "The Idea
of Decline in Western History".
Neither are democrat. In fact the both mags regularly chastizes this
current democratic administration. The only thing shameful is your clumsy
attempt to equate socialism, communism and the democratic party.
Foolish? Perhaps. Leftists of the 30s, 40s & 50s tended to ignore the
reality of a remote Soviet Communism, when faced by the overwhelming reality
of at home capitalism. It was a pretty nasty time for most people and the
conservative establishment reacted by retreating to their estates and
damning Roosevelt. Still the left was trying to solve a real problem, and
if they made mistakes, at least they weren't advising the out of work to eat
cake as they were foreclosing on a mortgage.
Both the extreme left and right tend to ignore reality when it doesn't fit
into their preconceived notions. But at least the lefties envision a
better world and want to do something about it. The extreme right is
merely into malevolence, greed and hate.
> >
> > Oh, I dunno... like maybe the GREAT DEPRESSION that Steinbeck is writing
> > about in the _Grapes of Wrath_!?
>
> The Great Depression happened. But Hemingway, Faulkner, Tennessee
Williams
> and others did not write
> didactic, propagandistic novels about it. They did not take a
ideological
> biased, anti-American position on it as Steinbeck did.
> Even playwright Arthur Miller, author of "Death of a Salesman", a
former member of the Communist
> Party, did not write subversive books attacking so flagrantly the
American system as Steinbeck did.
> With Steinbeck, if you were rich, even just comfortably middle class
you were evil; if you
> you were poor you were, ipso facto, good--at least in "The Grapes of
Wrath", "The Pearl" and
> "Of Mice and Men".
>
I don't know where you get that. I've read a great deal of Steinbeck, but
have rarely seen the attacks you mention. He certainly saw the flaws in the
capitalism, and didn't hesitate to point them out. But you can't equate
that with attacking the American System. The American political tradition
seems to be comfortable with socialism and/or capitalism.
There was a lot of misery happening in the 30s, and Alan Greenspan
notwithstanding, much of it was the result of excessive greed, and
incompetance on the part of the large corporation capitalist establishment.
Prior to the 30s the Government was essentially an arm of that
establishment.
Still, I am a believer in the capitalist system. I check the market each
morning, and most of what small wealth I have is in the form of stock
certificates. Noting its flaws doesn't make me a socialist. Nor does
owning a fair amount of stock in major corporations cause me to forget the
firm that laid off a relative a few months before retirement after 40 years
service, or the time I was fired for being a single parent or the employer
who did his best to emulate Dilbert's boss. To paraphrase Churchill.
Capitalism is the worst economic system, except for all others.
By the way, if you want to read the Ultimate Steinbeck, pick up a copy of
"Travels with Charley."
Jerry
Rich Egan
Jerome Schroeder <jer...@keinspam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8Bdi4.2197$VO1....@news.uswest.net...
> > >
> > > Gosh, the US economy tanks, thousands upon thousands are left jobless,
> >
> > But it was the U.S. government and the Federal Reserve Board that
> turned a
> > business-cycle panic and recession into a depression. The government
> raised interest
> > rates, tightened the money supply and caused the massive bank
failures.
> Milton Friedman
> > studied the situation very thoroughly and this was his
conclusion--the
> government was mainly
> > at fault.
> >
Of Course JKG would disagree. So would mao , Uncle Joe Stalin ,Marx
and Lenin . Not to mention Earl Browder , Eugene Debs , and Cong.
Samuel Dickstein! Just to mention a few . You don't seem to be able to grasp
the fact that Galbraith is a socialist . To a socialist ,. Government is the
solution
not the cause of all problems . No matter how they tinker with money supplys
or raise taxes , or create famines , spread disease , do illegal drug tests
, or
just plain murder their own citizens , In the eyes of a socialist , Govt is
good
It will never change . This delusion is too deeply ingrained in their brains
.
>
> > not to blame. The capitalist system had given the the Americans over
> one hundred years
> > of spectacular economic growth. Not everyone benefited equally, but
> America's poor were
> > still better off than the poor of the rest of the world, with perhaps
a
> few exceptions.
Not everyone contributed equally either.
> >
> You've obviously not visited neighborhoods and regions populated by the
> poor.
Poverty , like wealth is a state of mind . I know you won't believe that ,
but
it's true. The end result of investing is serenity, not wealth as you
probably think.
>
> > > The drought and the dust
> > > > bowl were acts of God. Yet Steinbeck blames Hoover and praises
> Roosevelt's New Deal.
>
> The drought was, but the dust was the result of poor farming methods.
> >
What you say here is at least partially true . It has been shown that the
old
deep plowing methods caused the upper top soil to become too loose and
subject to wind erosion . Once this was recognised and the old moldboard
plows were discarded , the wind erosion ceased to be the problem it once was
.
>
> > "Two current American Democrat and Leftist magazines, "The New
Republic"
> and "The Nation" have a very shameful history. "They latched onto
socialism
> (communism) in the
> > 1930s and never let go", writes Arthur Herman , the author of "The Idea
> of Decline in Western History".
>
> Neither are democrat. In fact the both mags regularly chastizes this
> current democratic administration. The only thing shameful is your
clumsy
> attempt to equate socialism, communism and the democratic party.
Hell!! Even other Democrats chastize this administration . It is not a
clumsy attempt
The only difference between communism and the Demoncratic party is the
schedule.
Communists would do it all over night . Demoncrats favor a slower approach .
>
> Foolish? Perhaps. Leftists of the 30s, 40s & 50s tended to ignore the
> reality of a remote Soviet Communism, when faced by the overwhelming
reality
> of at home capitalism. It was a pretty nasty time for most people and
the
> conservative establishment reacted by retreating to their estates and
> damning Roosevelt. Still the left was trying to solve a real problem, and
> if they made mistakes, at least they weren't advising the out of work to
eat
> cake as they were foreclosing on a mortgage.
First , Lets lose the Left- Right designations as they are meaningless . The
real
dichotomy is freedom vs Socialism . The Left -right thing is too simplistic
and it
casts similiar type of govts as in opposition when there really were no
major differences
Being so limited in it's scope , it tends to Make limited govt as a aspect
of the
so called Right or Nazi. . Well you and I know that doesn't fit because
there
was nothing limited about the Nazi regime . It was merely Nationalistic
Socialism
as opposed to the International Socialism of the Soviet Union . But both
were
socialistic and needed unlimited govt power to survive .
>
> Both the extreme left and right tend to ignore reality when it doesn't fit
> into their preconceived notions. But at least the lefties envision a
> better world and want to do something about it. The extreme right is
> merely into malevolence, greed and hate.
The "Malevolence" is the anger that socialists provoke in non socialists !
The "Greed" is merely people wanting a system where they don't have to
try to survive under destructive , confiscatory taxation. The power
to tax is the power to destroy. Why confer this on the govt ?
The "Hate" is merely people wanting the right to associate with whom
ever they wish without criticism . The flip side of choosing who you like
is choosing who you don't like as well .
> > >
> > > Oh, I dunno... like maybe the GREAT DEPRESSION that Steinbeck is
writing
> > > about in the _Grapes of Wrath_!?
> >
> > The Great Depression happened. But Hemingway, Faulkner, Tennessee
> Williams
> > and others did not write
> > didactic, propagandistic novels about it. They did not take a
> ideological
> > biased, anti-American position on it as Steinbeck did.
> > Even playwright Arthur Miller, author of "Death of a Salesman", a
> former member of the Communist
> > Party, did not write subversive books attacking so flagrantly the
> American system as Steinbeck did.
> > With Steinbeck, if you were rich, even just comfortably middle class
> you were evil; if you
> > you were poor you were, ipso facto, good--at least in "The Grapes of
> Wrath", "The Pearl" and
> > "Of Mice and Men".
Another aspect of the old pernicious Rich -bad/ poor good myth . Even
today there are people who believe this . Go out among your precious poor
people . When you find out what a bunch of bastards some of them are , you
will begin to believe in Calvinism . That is to say that we get our rewards
here on earth , not in heaven . Restructure your thinking !
> >
> I don't know where you get that. I've read a great deal of Steinbeck, but
> have rarely seen the attacks you mention. He certainly saw the flaws in
the
> capitalism, and didn't hesitate to point them out. But you can't equate
> that with attacking the American System. The American political
tradition
> seems to be comfortable with socialism and/or capitalism.
You are in such a basic aggreement with his thinking that you can't see the
flaws.
Ceratin aspects of american society are comfortable with socialism . Please
take
notice that by and large, the grandchildren of FDR's supporters are
Republicans.
This is why the Demoncratic party will never take a stand against
immigration .
The third world is where they get their never ending supply of new voters.
They
need a continous supply of ignorant losers to support them .
>
> There was a lot of misery happening in the 30s, and Alan Greenspan
> notwithstanding, much of it was the result of excessive greed, and
> incompetance on the part of the large corporation capitalist
establishment.
> Prior to the 30s the Government was essentially an arm of that
> establishment.
The Depression was a shotage of cash and credit . This was caused by
Government policies . Corporations don't control the money supply,
The government does . The Depression was caused by the Government
not industry .Unless you want to call the Federal Reserve a corporation.
>
> Still, I am a believer in the capitalist system. I check the market each
> morning, and most of what small wealth I have is in the form of stock
> certificates
How Patriotic of you ! When are you going to start selling and enjoy
some of that wealth? Or give it to the poor .
>Noting its flaws doesn't make me a socialist. Nor does
> owning a fair amount of stock in major corporations cause me to forget the
> firm that laid off a relative a few months before retirement after 40
years
> service, or the time I was fired for being a single parent or the employer
> who did his best to emulate Dilbert's boss.
Why would anyone want to work for anyone for 40 years ? I hate working
for someone else. I've been canned a few times for stupid reasons too.
Good ! If they'll can me for a stupid reason then they are stupid in other
respects as well . Who needs them ?
Rich
Sic Semper Tyrannis
> Jerry
>
>
>
Jerome Schroeder
> Of Course JKG would disagree. So would mao , Uncle Joe Stalin ,Marx
> and Lenin . Not to mention Earl Browder , Eugene Debs , and Cong.
> Samuel Dickstein! Just to mention a few . You don't seem to be able to
grasp
> the fact that Galbraith is a socialist . To a socialist ,.
Nonsense. Socialism is the government ownership of the means of
production. JKG never advocated such. Like most conservatives, you are
confused about what is or is not socialism.
Government is the
> solution
> not the cause of all problems . No matter how they tinker with money
supplys
> or raise taxes , or create famines , spread disease , do illegal drug
tests
> , or
> just plain murder their own citizens , In the eyes of a socialist , Govt
is
> good
> It will never change . This delusion is too deeply ingrained in their
brains
> .
If it weren't for the Federal government, most of this country would still
be run by two-bit local dicators, mostly fat white men, and Blacks, Women,
Freethinkers and other such undersireables would be forced to stand in the
gutter tugging their forelocks while their betters passed.
> >
> > >
> > You've obviously not visited neighborhoods and regions populated by the
> > poor.
>
> Poverty , like wealth is a state of mind . I know you won't believe that ,
> but
> it's true. The end result of investing is serenity, not wealth as you
> probably think.
That's an intensely obtuse and uncaring statement. Poverty is not haveing
the werewithal to live decently and not having the opportunity to change
that situation.
>
> First , Lets lose the Left- Right designations as they are meaningless .
The
> real
> dichotomy is freedom vs Socialism . The Left -right thing is too
simplistic
> and it
> casts similiar type of govts as in opposition when there really were no
> major differences
> Being so limited in it's scope , it tends to Make limited govt as a aspect
> of the
> so called Right or Nazi. . Well you and I know that doesn't fit because
> there
> was nothing limited about the Nazi regime . It was merely Nationalistic
> Socialism
> as opposed to the International Socialism of the Soviet Union . But both
> were
> socialistic and needed unlimited govt power to survive .
To an extent, I agree with you. We are actually talking about
Authoritarian vs Democratic government. You can have authoritarian
government under socialist, communist, captitalist or religious systems.
Ditto democratic. Indeed, prior to the civil rights era, most of this
country was under the thumb of local two-bit dictators who had little or no
interest in democracy.
> >
> > Both the extreme left and right tend to ignore reality when it doesn't
fit
> > into their preconceived notions. But at least the lefties envision a
> > better world and want to do something about it. The extreme right is
> > merely into malevolence, greed and hate.
>
>
> >Noting its flaws doesn't make me a socialist. Nor does
> > owning a fair amount of stock in major corporations cause me to forget
the
> > firm that laid off a relative a few months before retirement after 40
> years
> > service, or the time I was fired for being a single parent or the
employer
> > who did his best to emulate Dilbert's boss.
>
> Why would anyone want to work for anyone for 40 years ? I hate working
> for someone else. I've been canned a few times for stupid reasons too.
> Good ! If they'll can me for a stupid reason then they are stupid in other
> respects as well . Who needs them ?
> Rich
> Sic Semper Tyrannis
Back in the bad old days when the country was much more under the thumb of
capitalism than now, you were expected to find a job with a corporation and
hang in there thru retirement. If your resume indicated that you changed
jobs every 5 or 10 years you were considered flippant and unreliable.
You have a lot of nice things to say about capitalism, yet seem to be
indifferent to its abuses. The same bully who is commissar of works under
a communist system will end up running the equivalent corporation under the
capitalist system. The kind of people that you seem to admire.
I don't like bullys or bunco artists whether they call themselves Corporate
president, county commissioner, commissar, gauleiter or reverend.
Jerry
Rich Egan
> >
>
> > the fact that Galbraith is a socialist . To a socialist ,.
>
> production. JKG never advocated such. Like most conservatives, you are
> confused about what is or is not socialism.
No I'm not confused . I know that socialism can't survive with out being
authoritarian . I know that to put socialism into place one must first
create an
authoritarian state. I know that when I see someone advocate empowering the
state to do anything , the final outcome will be socialism .
>
> Government is the
> > solution
> > not the cause of all problems . No matter how they tinker with money
> supplys
> > or raise taxes , or create famines , spread disease , do illegal drug
> tests
> > , or
> > just plain murder their own citizens , In the eyes of a socialist , Govt
> is
> > good
> > It will never change . This delusion is too deeply ingrained in their
> brains
> > .
> If it weren't for the Federal government, most of this country would still
> be run by two-bit local dicators, mostly fat white men, and Blacks, Women,
> Freethinkers and other such undersireables would be forced to stand in the
> gutter tugging their forelocks while their betters passed.
The only Dictators that come to mind are the democrats, Chicago Mayor
Richard
Daley . Jersey City Mayor Frank Hague, and Louisiana Gov. Huey Long . Of
course there was the old Demo Boss, Tom Prendergast in Kansas City ,
Remember
him ? Truman had to join the KKK to get his blessing to run . Then there
was Ole
"Honey Fitz" Fitzgerald of Boston . Frank "I am The law" Hague would shut
down
newspapers he didn't like while he ran the old Hudson Co Machine. These aere
the
Local Bosses that you refer to as "Dictators" Fiorella la Guardia , The
Pork Chop
Gang in FLa .Tom Mathis in New Jersey and myriad others may have seemed
like
"dictators" But in reality , they ( For the most part) respected the
Constitution . Not
so today . You'll note that with the exception of Tom Mathis , all of the
above are
Democrats, The party of FDR and the "little Guy" Not Republicans.
Huey long was probably one of the worst dictators this nation has ever
seen .
What was his Cry? Everyman a King! The " Louisiana Kingfish" was as much a
socialist as any commisar in Russia . Remember when he was gunned down by
the Doctor Karl Weiss? Huey Long's personal Body Guard machinegunned Weiss
to death on the steps of the capital . What other Governor had a personal
body
guard with machineguns in those days ? It was unheard of .
> > > You've obviously not visited neighborhoods and regions populated by
the
> > > poor.
> >
> > Poverty , like wealth is a state of mind . I know you won't believe that
,
> > but
> > it's true. The end result of investing is serenity, not wealth as you
> > probably think.
>
> That's an intensely obtuse and uncaring statement. Poverty is not haveing
> the werewithal to live decently and not having the opportunity to change
> that situation.
" America is the only nation where you can drive to the poorhouse in your
own car" The Poor in America are betteroff than most of the middle class
of other nations. Under such conditions, Poverty is a state of mind !
>
> >
> > First , Lets lose the Left- Right designations as they are meaningless .
> The
> > real
> > dichotomy is freedom vs Socialism . The Left -right thing is too
> simplistic
> > and it
> > casts similiar type of govts as in opposition when there really were no
> > major differences
> > Being so limited in it's scope , it tends to Make limited govt as a
aspect
> > of the
> > so called Right or Nazi. . Well you and I know that doesn't fit because
> > there
> > was nothing limited about the Nazi regime . It was merely Nationalistic
> > Socialism
> > as opposed to the International Socialism of the Soviet Union . But both
> > were
> > socialistic and needed unlimited govt power to survive .
>
> To an extent, I agree with you. We are actually talking about
> Authoritarian vs Democratic government. You can have authoritarian
> government under socialist, communist, captitalist or religious systems.
> Ditto democratic. Indeed, prior to the civil rights era, most of this
> country was under the thumb of local two-bit dictators who had little or
no
> interest in democracy.
No we're not talking about Democracy. I'm talking about Freedom and limited
government . Please remember that Hitler was elected in a democratic
election . With out enforcable limits on Govt , Democracy means nothing
> > >
> > > Both the extreme left and right tend to ignore reality when it doesn't
> fit
> > > into their preconceived notions. But at least the lefties envision a
> > > better world and want to do something about it. The extreme right is
> > > merely into malevolence, greed and hate.
> Back in the bad old days when the country was much more under the thumb of
> capitalism than now, you were expected to find a job with a corporation
and
> hang in there thru retirement. If your resume indicated that you changed
> jobs every 5 or 10 years you were considered flippant and unreliable.
Fine There was still some job out there for me . Or my tax obligations were
small enough that I could live in rural subsitance . Basically withdrawing
from
society , which many did . It was superior to prostituting yourself to any
boss.
The only resson your boss hired you was to do his dirty work. If he could do
it himself, you wouldn't have the job .
>
> You have a lot of nice things to say about capitalism, yet seem to be
> indifferent to its abuses. The same bully who is commissar of works
under
> a communist system will end up running the equivalent corporation under
the
> capitalist system. The kind of people that you seem to admire.
What you are calling capitalism is to me the freedom to move around . Maybe
that means nothing to you but it was always important to me . To have a
guaranteed job that I couldn't get awasy from is slavery . I'm not a slave .
To be under the gov'ts thumb merely for some economic remneumeration
is not a life I care to lead . Please note that I very rarely succumb to the
use
of the standard socialist terems of Left -Right or Capitalism . Those are
their words and they are meant to carry a charge. Socialists seek to create
a false Left - right Model that places socialism ( Liberalism , leftism,
what
ever you wish to call it ) against all other forms of govt . They are all
castigated
under one heading " Right wing" This puts all forms of Govt under one
discription . Everything from Hitler's Germany to the most liberal democracy
is all described as " Right wing" as though there were no distinctions .
Under
this model there is no provision for a Limited Govt as we had in the US for
most of the life of this republic ( Until FDR ) The blatant abuse of the
term
"capitalist " as a description of anything that is not socialist , totally
misses
the point. What the hell is a capitalist Country anyway ? I'll tell you .
It's any
country or system that thne communists didn't like . Please show me in our,
or anyother nations constitution where it proclaims itself to be a
Capitalist
Country! It's their term not yours or mine !
>
> I don't like bullys or bunco artists whether they call themselves
Corporate
> president, county commissioner, commissar, gauleiter or reverend.
How about overbearing broads from DYFS. Or housing inspectors
who disregard the Constitution. Or legistlators who regularly violate
the Tenth amendment . Or enviro nazis who want to take your car .
Or a president who makes executive orders that are a usurpation
of the legistlative process. Or an attorney general who unleashes
her BATF goons on 90 innocent people with tanks ? Or an IRS
that is used as a political tool ? Or Cops who don't think they need
a warrant to search your home? Or a RICO law that allows them
to take your car on a pretext that you are a drug dealer ? Shall
I go on ?
Phil Ronzone
Jerome Schroeder <jer...@keinspam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>>Of Course JKG would disagree. So would mao , Uncle Joe Stalin
>>,Marx and Lenin . Not to mention Earl Browder , Eugene Debs ,
>>and Cong. Samuel Dickstein! Just to mention a few . You don't
>>seem to be able to
>grasp
>>the fact that Galbraith is a socialist . To a socialist ,.
>>
>Nonsense. Socialism is the government ownership of the means
>of production. JKG never advocated such. Like most
>conservatives, you are confused about what is or is not
>socialism.
Snicker. Sorry, he WAS a right-bloddy fascist variant of socialism.
Let's say, back in the old USSR days, we gave each victim living under
communism a nice, bit sheet of paper proudly proclaiming that he or
she "owned" a given pievce of property,,like, say, 10% of State Bread
Factory 143.
And everything else was the same ...
Now, there ain't no socialism in that USSR anymore is there, because the
workers "own" the factories, and not the State.
Right?
Of course not.
When, for example, the State, as in say, JFK, can threaten vague threats
and force the steel makers to change their prices to suit JFK, do they
"own" their factories anymore than the workers in the example above?
If you own your house, but the State restrict who/what/where/when you
can sell it, do you really own your house?
When the State controls YOUR property, then your ownership isn't so
"solid" anymore.
Since Galbraith seemed to be comfortable with Swedish style 50% State
konsumption of GDP, I'd say he advocated socialism. He just didn't want
to call it that. Bad PR and all that.
--
Let justice prevail though the Heavens fall. Judge, and prepare to be judged.