This business about leftist/Stalinists in America (oh my!), countered with declarations about the puerile Libertarian taint of authoritarianism is hilarious, though much of the discussion provides plenty of information and insight for later contemplation should anyone be so inclined.

In my experience, libertarianism can be boiled down to this:

I demand the liberty to impose my authority on you -- followed by endless (circular) argument.

As for American Stalinists. Yes? So? Most of the contemporary (ie: 1930's) defenses of Stalin that I've read are from England, interestingly enough, not from the CPUSA, and much of that defense is based on a recognition that a) the Soviet Union was still in delicate straits given the tremendous hostility of capitalists toward the Proletarian Revolution; and b) despite that, the Soviets were moving ahead at an amazing clip and perfecting the Revolution as they went; and c) counter-Revolutionaries were everywhere and had to be dealt with quickly -- and sometimes ruthlessly; and d) Fascism was a far greater threat to Mankind than Communism could ever hope to be. Yes, some Americans bought this, and I'm sure there is at least a remnant of them to this day. Stalin is remembered fondly by many Russians as well. Strange, isn't it?

Are they wrong, were they wrong? Well, of course. By now we should be able to define "political error" as cleavage to or active support of totalitarian and/or autocratic solutions.

So. By definition neo-cons and their running dogs and fellow travellers should be recognized by the masses as deep in political error. Surprisingly enough, that recognition is at least dawning if not yet fully realized.

The fact that our Constitution and form of government has been systematically subverted by these creatures is dawning as well, though The People are still very far from full recognition of just what has been done and how damaging it is. And having been subverted, I don't know that Constitutional self-government can ever be restored -- at least on anything like its previous foundations.

Autocracy and totalitarianism are deeply destructive forces, and authoritarianism is only slightly less so. The nation descended into Autocracy with the lawless appointment of George W. Bush to the Presidency. This Autocracy was agreed to by the Powers That Be -- ie: Federal elected officials and the corporate and media elites that support them -- the Public be Damned. Quite literally, The People were dismissed and ignored as irrelevant once the selection of Autocrat was confirmed. Now these Powers are seeing their choice of Autocrat left something to be desired, so they are trying to get out of this little bargain they made, and it may be too late, the die being cast.

Too late for them, but not necessarily for The People.

Right now, it is not clear what -- if anything -- the seething, angry masses are going to do about the con-game that's been played on them.

They may remain the relatively passive and easily manipulated consumerist drones they've been programmed to be throughout most of the Bush years. But the signs suggest that events will intervene (primarily through economic forces) to, shall we say, goad The People to reclaim their rightful sovereignty. The consequences could be quite startling for The Powers That Be.

Wow! I hadn't realized that the content of those letters had evolved so much:

I apologize if the contents in this mail are contrary to your moral ethics, which I feel may be of great disturbance to your personal life.

Perhaps I've been too quick with the delete key. Much merriment is at hand.

>>In my experience, libertarianism can be boiled down to this:

I demand the liberty to impose my authority on you -- followed by endless (circular) argument.<<

I'm no political scientist, but I think that might be an inversion of what libertarians _believe_ they believe (if you see what I mean). That is, they believe the opposite of this statement, but their beliefs lead to the truth of it.

Take personal property, a big libertarian hobbyhorse. Zoning laws, for example. A lib would say that the government should have zero right to tell me what to do with my personal property--if I want to open a club, or turn my house into a church, or use my backyard as a toxic waste dump, nobody should be able to say me nay, *no matter what the impact on the health, safety, or well-being of my neighbors.* It's my property, damn it -- hands off! (And I don't want to hear any arguments that the free market would somehow prevent nasty outcomes of absolute freedom--nothing trumps greed.)

What this means is that my free will can have a detrimental effect on you, and there's nothing you can do about it. Which leads, basically, to me imposing my authority on you.

Libertarian reasoning is often used to justify lack of government regulation over, for example, the accounting statements of publicly traded companies and food safety standards. What do we get? We get people who lie and cheat the public, and sometimes poison them, for the sake of profit.

That doesn't mean some _ideals_ of libs aren't somewhat noble--keep the government out of my mind and off my body, for example. But like I said, in the end it's an extreme just like communism that is insupportable for a functioning society.

Oh, I can never leave those unread. They provide so much amusement I should have to pay to receive them. But I have to say this is the first one I got that expressed concern for my moral safety and ethics. It was a lot longer, and actually provided a link to a CNN story about the purported plane crash. Theft has come a long way, baby!

One of the arguments in this thread has been about the treason of American leftists; did they or did they not spy for Stalin and the Soviet Union. Did Julius and Ethel Rosenberg and Harry Gold actually pass atomic secrets to the Russians? Did Alger Hiss spy for them at the State Department? I don't find the evidence completely compelling, but suppose for the sake of argument that they did exactly what they were charged -- and the Rosenbergs and Gold were convicted -- of doing.

Was it treason? In the narrow sense, yes, absolutely, but there's a broader sense, a moral sense, in which what they were said to have done could be considered as something quite different.

They were communists, or socialists, and as such, could be forgiven for thinking that if capitalists had exclusive use of the atomic bomb, the world would ultimately become a very nasty place for the champions of socialism. (It's hard to believe that Stalin was ever considered a champion of socialism, but hell, even Sartre, who was a lot more sophisticated than the Rosenbergs once frantically argued that he was.)

I imagine the same sort of thinking motivated Abdul Qadeer Khan; if the crusaders have the bomb, would it not be better if the Umma also had it?

I remember Jane Fonda's appearance in Hanoi, and the furor over it at the time. As an anti-war activist, frankly I was embarrassed by it. I thought it was egotistical, stupid and disrespectful. After all, it was true that American pilots were being tortured five miles away while she was offering expressions of solidarity with Uncle Ho, who was certainly a patriot, but hardly an angel.

That said, I didn't think Fonda was a traitor -- a publicity hound, yes, but not a traitor -- and I understood why she could have deluded herself into thinking she was advancing the brotherhood of man.

Likewise with the spies of the forties and fifties. What they did was dumb, and possibly destructive -- although after watching Cheney and the neocons threaten everyone with nuking, I wonder sometimes if they and Khan and Ahmadinejad didn't/don't have at least some right on their side. -- but was it teasonous? To the United States, perhaps; to the cause of humanity, I'm not so sure. Your mileage may vary.