Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Someone explain this to me - why do wackos say that because Loughner read books on communism, it

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
jillan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-11 09:36 PM
Original message
Someone explain this to me - why do wackos say that because Loughner read books on communism, it
proves he's a liberal?

What is the correlation here? What am I missing??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
sadbear Donating Member (799 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-11 09:37 PM
Response to Original message
1. Remind them that he read Ayn Rand, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-11 09:38 PM
Response to Original message
2. The Right misses this little factoid
in order to understand your enemy you need to read what your enemy writers.

They like people NOT to read things published by the other side. Not saying that this kid was readying marx for that. He may just for things like oh... a Poli Sci Class, but there you have it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bushisanidiot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-11 09:38 PM
Response to Original message
3. Repukes have the deranged opinion that communist and liberal are equal.
because they are complete hate mongering idiots.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jillan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-11 09:39 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. That's what I don't get - what do we have in common with communists?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-11 09:45 PM
Response to Reply #5
14. The history of the Right going after commies
does not go back to McCarthy or even to the Red Scare of the 1920s.

It goes back to before Marx published the Manifesto, oh way before that. It goes back to the 1820s and the first COMMUNES... notice the term I used.

These communes lived separate lives from the main society and mostly failed. It has been an effort going ack a long time to demonize this as outside the mainstream, and not American. In the 20th century this also became about rugged individualism (American) vs the collective (foreign, European)...

I hope this helps.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-11 09:39 PM
Response to Original message
4. It's the same mentality that would blame his behavior on his taste in music
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jillan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-11 09:41 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. But what do we have in common with communists?
I'm so confused :P
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-11 09:42 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. As Archie Bunker once said, "People who live in communes are commune-ists!"
;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jillan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-11 09:44 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. Lol - Archie Bunker - a true role model for Republicans everywhere.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Trajan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-11 09:40 PM
Response to Original message
6. The ideal concept of communism is altruistic ...
Kinda 'Lefty Far Out Thinking' .... The Nanny State on steroids ...

Yet .... The reality is: Actual communism became nothing more than a front for a feudal system, where high ranking party members (and their families) skimmed resources from the commons for personal gain ...

And using a fascist police force to maintain control is certainly not a wishy washy Liberal cause ....

It is a purposeful twisting of facts to create a Liberal Strawman: One they then batter with cheap one liners ....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jillan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-11 09:43 PM
Response to Reply #6
12. where high ranking party members (and their families) skimmed resources from the commons"...
that sounds more in line with Republican values.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
canetoad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-11 09:42 PM
Response to Original message
8. Correction
Loughner posted on the internet that these were his favourite books. That doesn't guarantee he has ever opened one of them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HEyHEY Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-11 09:42 PM
Response to Original message
10. I find it odd too, I'm a liberal and I hate communism
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
virgogal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-11 09:42 PM
Response to Original message
11. What you read proves nothing. After the OKC bombing I read
"The Turner Diaries".

Complete garbage,but I was curious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-11 09:49 PM
Response to Original message
15. they really really want to blame liberals for this
and by liberal, they mean YOU

it's okay to take it personally, because it was intended that way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
moondust Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-11 09:55 PM
Response to Original message
16. They've obviously never been to college.
At least not a real college where ideas of all kinds are examined and discussed. It's called learning.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cerridwen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-11 09:56 PM
Response to Original message
17. A legacy of mccarthyism.
Was McCarthyism to blame? Obviously the congressional hearings, loyalty programs, and blacklists affected the lives of the men and women caught up in them. But beyond that, it is hard to tell. The statistics are imprecise. Ten thousand people may have lost their jobs. Is that few or many? It may well be useful to reflect on an earlier debate among historians about the application of sanctionsin this case the apparently low number of whippings administered under slaveryto realize that it may not be necessary to whip many slaves to keep the rest of the plantation in line.

Quantification aside, it may be helpful to look at the specific sectors of American society that McCarthyism touched. Such an appraisal, tentative though it must be, may offer some insight into the extent of the damage and into the ways in which the anti-Communist crusade influenced American society, politics, and culture. We should keep in mind, however, that McCarthyism's main impact may well have been in what did not happen rather than in what didthe social reforms that were never adopted, the diplomatic initiatives that were not pursued, the workers who were not organized into unions, the books that were not written, and the movies that were never filmed.

The most obvious casualty was the American left. The institutional toll is clear. The Communist party, already damaged by internal problems, dwindled into insignificance and all the organizations associated with it disappeared. The destruction of the front groups and the left-led unions may well have had a more deleterious impact on American politics than the decline of the party itself. With their demise, the nation lost the institutional network that had created a public space where serious alternatives to the status quo could be presented. Moreover, with the disappearance of a vigorous movement on their left, moderate reform groups were more exposed to right-wing attacks and thus rendered less effective. (Schrecker, Ellen. The Age of McCarthyism. Boston: Bedford Books of St. Marvin's Press, 1994. (pp. 92-94)) quoted at this link


The social costs of what came to be called McCarthyism have yet to be computed. By conferring its prestige on the red hunt, the state did more than bring misery to the lives of hundreds of thousands of Communists, former Communists, fellow travelers, and unlucky liberals. It weakened American culture and it weakened itself.

Unlike the Palmer Raids of the early 1920s, which were violent hit-and-run affairs that had no long-term effect, the vigilante spirit McCarthy represented still lives on in legislation accepted as a part of the American political way. The morale of the United States' newly reliable and devoted civil service was savagely undermined in the 1950s, and the purge of the Foreign Service contributed to our disastrous miscalculations in Southeast Asia in the 1960s and the consequent human wreckage. The congressional investigations of the 1940s and 1950s fueled the anti-Communist hysteria which eventually led to the investment of thousands of billions of dollars in a nuclear arsenal, with risks that boggle the minds of even those who specialize in "thinking about the unthinkable." Unable to tolerate a little subversion (however one defines it) if that is the price of freedom, dignity, and experimentation--we lost our edge, our distinctiveness. McCarthyism decimated its alleged target--the American Communist Party, whose membership fell from about seventy-five thousand just after World War II to less than ten thousand in 1957 (probably a high percentage of these lost were FBI informants) but the real casualties of that assault were the walking wounded of the liberal left and the already impaired momentum of the New Deal. No wonder a new generation of radical idealists came up through the peace and civil-rights movements rather than the Democratic Party.

The damage was compounded by the state's chosen instruments of destruction, the professional informers--those ex-Communists whom the sociologist Edward Shils described in 1956 as a host of frustrated, previously anonymous failures, whose "fantasies of destroying American society and harming their fellow citizens, having fallen out with their equally villainous comrades, now provide a steady stream of information and misinformation about the extent to which Communists, as coherent and stable in character as themselves, penetrated and plotted to subvert American institutions." Specific error can harm individuals, but the institutionalization of misinformation by way of the informer system may have contributed to the falsification of history. "As a rule, our memories romanticize the past," wrote Arthur Koestler. "But when one has renounced a creed or been betrayed by a friend, the opposite mechanism sets to work. In the light of that later knowledge, the original experience loses its innocence, becomes tainted and rancid in recollection.... Those who were caught in the great illusion of our time, and have lived through its moral and intellectual debauch, either give themselves up to a new addiction of the opposite type, or are condemned to pay with a life-long hangover." (Victor Navasky, Naming Names (New York: Viking Press, 1980)) quoted at this link



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cerridwen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-11 10:09 PM
Response to Reply #17
24. Or you could look further back in history to the War Department's Spider Web Chart
against women's rights and peace organizations.

A little discussion about how it was used against child labor laws and such is at this link

More on the chart including the "subversive" organizations is at this link

Women's rights and peace movements sure scare the bejezzus outta those who would maintain the status quo.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-11 09:57 PM
Response to Original message
18. I don't believe that's their reasoning. Their reasoning is that anyone unhappy with Bush
and opposing the wars is a Liberal in this sick world of with us or against us.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hobbit709 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-11 10:01 PM
Response to Original message
19. Reafing something turns you into that in their magical thinking
If you read Marx, then that automatically makes you are Marxist
Of course they never carry that fallacy to its logical conclusion

If you read the bible you automatically become a christian
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
moondust Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-11 10:02 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. And if you read a text on proctology?
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hobbit709 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-11 10:31 PM
Response to Reply #20
29. Exactly
But it only applies if you're a Republican proctologist but having their head up their ass comes naturally to them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Monk06 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-11 10:04 PM
Response to Original message
21. Loughner claims about his favorite books which include The Communist Manifesto, Mein Kampf are

meaningless. He also claims to be a fan of Ayn Rand. SO
WHAT. Bush claimed to read two books a week. One week
he claimed to have read TWO SHAKESPEARES.

I would hazard guess the Loughner understood as much
about Marx and Hitler's writings as Bush understood
about the Bard of Stratford.

I tend not to take stock in the reading habits of crazy
people and illiterates. One of the most widely read books
among the hippies of my generation was the Lord of the Rings.
Apparently it was choke full of profound philosophical insights.

???

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KurtNYC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-11 10:05 PM
Response to Original message
22. circular question -- "why do wackos..." ? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Generic Brad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-11 10:08 PM
Response to Original message
23. People who read books without pictures are liberals
People who read books that do not have stories are liberals.

People who can spell are liberals.

I'm sure the rationale is something like that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mojeoux Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-11 10:13 PM
Response to Original message
25. He read Ayn Rand and Hitler's Mein Kemp also
So what does that say?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scarletwoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-11 10:14 PM
Response to Original message
26. Liberal = Commie. I can't believe you've never come across that longtime RW trope before now!
Cripes, I've been hearing it all my adult life (I'm 61).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jillan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-11 10:19 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. Of course I have heard it, it is just the first time that I care to know why. In the past
I have always just shrugged and said "whatever". I am so used to labels being thrown at liberals, that I usually just brush it off.

But now, in light of this tragedy, I am curious why communism? Socialism, I can understand, but I cannot understand why having a liberal philosophy is equated with communism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scarletwoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-11 10:54 PM
Response to Reply #27
31. "Commie" has been the all-purpose bogeyman since the 50s.
It's a relic of the Cold War days.

Since Communism is a "bad thing", it gets applied to the perceived enemies of the Right Wing, which means liberals.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JustFiveMoreMinutes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-11 10:19 PM
Response to Original message
28. He liked Alice In Wonderland too.
But does anyone in today's world understand the original allegory?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jwirr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-11 10:53 PM
Response to Original message
30. He was interested in language and the power of language. Both
the nazi book and the communist book are great examples of power speaking. They moved people and their emotions. For Loughner I do not think they meant any more than that. I don't remember the other books but my guess is that they were all along the language idea.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Apr 29th 2024, 12:07 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC