Ch. 4 - Reds, Pinkos, Fellow Travelers

Chris OConnor

Ch. 4 - Reds, Pinkos, Fellow Travelers

Please use this thread for discussing Chapter 4.

DWill · Freshman Joined: 31 Jan 2008 Posts: 243 Gender:

Let me first say that I admired one of this author's previous books, Freethinkers. I thought she did a good job with intellectual history in that one. In this one, though, so far, she has trouble with her focus and is somewhat too digressive. She uses the term intellectual, meaning the class of people, imprecisely; it's unclear just what this term can mean, as it applies to figures as diverse as Irving Howe and Newt Gingrinch. She at times fingers the people (almost said "folks") who revile the intellectuals, other times the intellectuals themselves. It's all a welter to me. She makes several "imaginative leaps," whereas in a carefully argued and documented work, this wouldn't be done. There is too much plain opinion parading as researched conclusions.

The basic problem here might be that she's trying to cover an impossibly large field.

LanDroid · Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 12:34 pm Post subject:

I don't have as much of a problem with her term "intellectual" as you do. I take it to mean people like college professors who are paid to read lots of books, publish information, do research, and sometimes teach. This also includes policy experts who advise Governments, etc. Beyond that, Jacoby requires a certain amount of open mindedness.

A few interesting portions from this chapter. On page 85 Jacoby describes the Red Scare which severely restricted immigration. The fear of importing communist sympathizers played a role in the U.S. not allowing Jews to come to our shores during WW II.

I was also struck by the election results in 1936 - the Communist Party received 0.2 percent of the vote and the Socialist Party 0.4 percent. p. 88 Yet this was perceived as a serious internal threat for another 20 years.

Jacoby also traces the journey of neo-conservatives from anti-Stalinist communism in the 30's, through several reversals of philosophy, and into their current brand of hawkish conservatism. There doesn't seem to be much logic to this evolution other than at every step of the way, they remained cranky curmudgeons carping about the status quo.

Ophelia · Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 12:51 pm Post subject:

Robert Tulip · Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 8:52 pm Post subject:

The problem with communism, from the US point of view, was the explicit Marxist-Leninist idea of the party as the vanguard of the proletariat committed to revolutionary overthrow of economic relations through abolition of private property and equalisation of income, not to mention godless hatred of Christianity. Stalin massacred millions in the purges. The Communist Party, including Gramsci's more subtle notion of the Modern Prince campaigning for strategic hegemony via the Long March through the institutions, struck an existential fear in the hearts of Americans, such that Americans found more common ground with ex-Nazis than with communists. A committed fanatical organisation with a coherent vision, however warped, will wield influence well beyond its numbers unless it is stomped on very heavily. My opinion is that communists should have freedom of speech, but their freedom to organise should be restricted when their explicit aims attack the basic freedoms of others. McCarthy was on the right side of history when you compare the subsequent results in Korea, China, the USSR and Europe.

LanDroid · Posted: Sat Apr 12, 2008 9:01 am Post subject:


	HOME	ABOUT	BOOKS	TRANSCRIPTS	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CONTACT