Hollywood: Unmasking informant T-10 (1985)
content.time.com
content.time.com
And because he knew what he was doing was wrong, he did it in secret.
He was likely acting covertly so that he could continue informing on "Reds" unimpeded, and perhaps enjoyed playing Cloak and Dagger.
In terms of human misery and body-count, I am sure Communists are right up there with Nazis on the spectrum of evil.
[1] https://www.amazon.com/Antony-C.-Sutton/e/B001K1S1ZE%3Fref=d...
See Pol Pot and Chinese Cultural Revolution.
Soviet union and CCP were never communist, they used the term communism for propaganda purposes. Communism stands for workers owning the means of production. Your local labor union is more communist than the CCP. The collectively owned Amul dairy(India)[1] is more communist than the Soviet union. Communism at a state level has never existed.
The defining feature of a communist collective is that workers own the means of production. This was achieved successfully for milk production in India with legal protections to prevent financialization such as IPOs for Amul India.
This is the largest example (I could find) of a collective organization successfully implementing the concept of workers owning the means of production, so successful that India went from a milk deficit state to the largest milk producer in the world leapfrogging the United states by 3X.
You can nit pick on semantics, on how much the state should be involved and how this example is not valid but the "great leap forward " is etc. but the defining feature of communism is workers owning the means of production. This is well understood and is in the first line of its wikipedia definition.
You can stretch the essence of the definition to include various other clauses or Soviets etc, so that you might have an angle of attack against the concept of communism. I leave you to that, but I think I have made my point.
Distributism and communism seems to have considerable overlap. If you are averse to the term communism, go ahead and call it distributism. I won't be a pedant and argue that Amul is not distributism in action because no Pope/church is involved.
Another example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shri_Mahila_Griha_Udyog_Lijjat...
Distributism is a concept - not a system of government - which has been expressed for a long time through agricultural cooperatives, owned jointly by it's member farmers and workers and not 'the People' (ie the State), such as Amul, or the corn growers cooperatives in my native Midwest.
It isn't specifically Catholic, it just happens to be largely Catholic workers who have participated. See the afore-cited Mondragon Corporation, larger even than Amul, or the Argentine factory workers declaring ownership of the factories in which they worked, during their financial crisis a couple of decades ago.
This is absolutely incorrect. It is obvious you yourself haven't consulted any reference whatsoever. Communism aims for a stateless society. From the very first line in wikipedia
"Communism (from Latin communis, 'common, universal')[1][2] is a far-left[3][4][5] sociopolitical, philosophical, and economic ideology and current within the socialist movement[1] whose goal is the establishment of a communist society, namely a socioeconomic order centered around common ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange—allocating products to everyone in the society.[6][7][8] It also involves the absence of social classes, money,[9] and the state.[10][11][12]"
And even as a colloquialism it is well known that Communism means that "the workers own the means of production".
Further
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stateless_society
"Some political philosophies, particularly anarchism, consider the state an unwelcome institution and stateless societies the ideal, while Marxism considers that in a post-capitalist society the state would be unnecessary and wither away. "
Your statement about Marx and Communism is clearly absolutely false. The utopian Marxist communist society is stateless. The only purpose of a state like entity in a Marxist society is to hold democratic elections to arrive at consensus, in particular the state-analogous entity cannot bear any weapons or use violence and judges and courts will be democratically elected and not run by "professionals" (aka bourgeoisie). This is explicitly described as a utopian society.
> See the afore-cited Mondragon Corporation, larger even than Amul,
Simple yes/no question - do the workers own the means of production in Mondragon?
> It isn't specifically Catholic
Of course, I explicitly said that I was being pedantic. I only said that to hold a mirror to your pedantry, where you refuse to acknowledge that workers owning the means of production is the defining characteristic of a communist collective. Instead, you go off on tangents about how marx himself said that a communist society implies centralized state power, which is clearly false. It is infact the opposite.
I would reserve that term for your own behavior and comment which are virtually entirely false and incorrect. Your media has been serving you feces that you have been voraciously gulping down and believe terms to mean the exact opposite of what it actually does. Keep devouring the propagandized media feces where you think freedom is slavery and words mean the opposite of their definition. Please "consult any reference".
Wasn't that exactly what happened w/ McCarthyism and the Red Scare?
Check those death counts. Communists make the Nazis look like bumbling amateurs.
Soviet union and CCP were never communist, they used the term communism for propaganda purposes. Communism stands for workers owning the means of production. This was never true in Russia or China. Your local labor union is more communist than the CCP. The collectively owned Amul dairy(India)[1] is more communist than the Soviet union. Communism at a state level has never existed.
This really amounts to thought policing- if someone just happens to think that worker ownership should be more than it currently is - the FBI must be tipped off.
I will leave the 1984 analogies and the horrors of the CIA in Latin America and Asia up to you.
Or even believing a worker performing work and creating wealth should not have his surplus labor time expropriated by some idle class heir.
The hunter-gatherer bands roaming the Amazon are communist, and free of such exploitation (if they avoid mining companies trying to kill them) - I suppose these hunter gatherers are equivalents to the Nazis.
Americans today have no idea why they celebrate labor day. It comes and goes with the media and government glossing over it as a "long weekend".
My original comment is at -1 now, downvoted by employees of corporations because I argued for them.
It's worse. Americans have no idea that May Day is a holiday that originated in America. Instead, our government changed May 1 into "Law Day," the holiday when we celebrate obeying the law, and created a fake-ass state "Labor Day."
"There was disagreement among labor unions at this time about when a holiday celebrating workers should be, with some advocating for continued emphasis of the September march-and-picnic date while others sought the designation of the more politically charged date of May 1. Conservative Democratic President Grover Cleveland was one of those concerned that a labor holiday on May 1 would tend to become a commemoration of the Haymarket affair and would strengthen socialist and anarchist movements that backed the May 1 commemoration around the globe.[19] In 1887, he publicly supported the September Labor Day holiday as a less inflammatory alternative,[20] formally adopting the date as a United States federal holiday through a law that he signed in 1894.[9]"
"Believing that the economically well-off and those professing contrary politics should be starved to death imprisoned in their own country or in Siberia is the same as believing the German people should prosper in their ancestral lands and be free of foreign exploitation."
Present-day communists still proudly proclaim "eat the rich", so the hate is not limited to some distant time and place. And please spare me the excuses of how "eat" doesn't mean "eat", but a peaceful and gradual economic transition where resources are more fairly reallocated. Such charitable interpretations are never extended to disfavored movements.