Foseti has created a bit of a kerfuffle with his observation that Eisenshower was objectively pro-communist. Various people say no way, Moldbug says it’s so. Foseti refines his position a bit. The line of thought seems to have started with another post on a blue-blooded Wall Street fellow who was very cozy with the communists.
Moldbug takes an extreme position, that Russian communism was actually a creation of the American political culture, and thus America itself is communist. This is an oversimplification, but all thinking is oversimplification, it’s what makes thinking possible. Still he is not giving Europeans credit for being able to come up with their own insane and destructive ideas.
The stumbling block of analytical thinking is trying to come up with a unified explanation that covers everything. I don’t think most things have one primary and sufficient cause. Usually multiple factors are involved. Reality is complicated and messy.
It’s certainly a bizarre story. You have the US government, and its political elite, theoretically in opposition to the Russian government and its political elite. And yet the US elite seems to have been quite friendly with its ostensible enemies. Were they part of the same system? Not really two separate things at all? Moldbug makes pre-WWII communism one thing, and post-WWII communism two camps, American and Russian. But as many similarities and common interests two things have, they can still be distinctly different.
A few things must be dispensed with. The more obvious is that the US is governed by the principles of the Scottish Enlightenment as encoded in the US Constitution. We are in fact governed by the Puritan concept of ordered liberty, and all the revolution, liberty, freedom, representation blah blah blah crap was only used to transfer power from the British aristocracy to the Puritan merchant and banker elite, and to keep it firmly there. They are assisted by various hunchbacked toadies, notably the Quaker/Methodist/other pacifist Christian bourgeoisie and the Jewish merchants and bankers, but these people should not be mistaken as having any executive function.
These people are not communists. The problem with all these political terms- communist, socialist, liberal, progressive- is that they obscure more than they describe. A communist strictly speaking is someone who advocates a communist form of government. Is someone friendly, or sympathetic to communism a communist? Is someone pro-communist a communist? Is someone opposed to anti-communism a communist?
I say no, because a person can be all of these things to various degrees and with various qualifications. This PQJ power structure is not communist; but it is definitely communitarian. It does not believe in individualism or individual freedom. It believes in the rule of the greater good, as they define it on your behalf, and for which your input is not wanted or needed.
Did the PQJs want communism for North America and Western Europe? No. They didn’t believe in the universal applicability of communism, so they can’t really be thought of as communist. More importantly they had a long-lived philosophy- centuries older than communism, and far different in nature- that however much it was compatible with communism, and however much it produced the same results, was something different.
The PQJs nonetheless thought communism was an excellent form of social organization for the rest of the world- Eastern Europe, Asia, and Latin America- and the preferred replacement for older authoritarian social systems. Representative democracy could too easily be hijacked by the old elites, as was the constant danger in the West. The idea that any small communist country would become a satellite was mocked. What conservatives called “human rights violations”- seizure of property, torture and imprisonment of political opponents, surveillance of the whole society by the secret police- were simply the necessary price to achieve “social justice”.
They didn’t want this in the West, because it wasn’t necessary- they were in charge. A certain amount of private property, free speech and other liberties could be tolerated because they controlled things and could ensure they wouldn’t get out of hand.
Another misconception is that Eisenhower, as an Army officer, would have been a conservative. But the US Army has always been a liberal and not very aggressive organization. West Point was founded to train surveyors and civil engineers to map and channel the frontier. Ike went in for the free education. His parents were pacifists. He was a staff officer his entire career and never enamored of the cult of the warrior.
I remember the constant arguments over communism in the 70’s and 80’s, and liberals made many different distinctions between different kinds of communists. The Soviet Union was an adversary and a potential military threat, and had to be regarded with caution, but was still a legitimate and decent society. It had its failings, but so did the US so Americans could hardly judge. Third World communists were idealists trying to improve the lot of the poor, and deserved our support. European communists were also admirable idealists. American communists were a bit foolish- America didn’t need communism, it had the PQJs- but still these people were idealists working for a better world, and any fear or condemnation of them was a sure sign of a warped mind and a cruel heart.
So the presence of these people in the US government, even by a mainstream Midwestern “conservative” like Eisenhower, would not be the least bit troubling, in fact they were regarded as a positive influence. This couldn’t be too openly admitted, as the unwashed masses were too in the thrall of visions of concentration camps, mass starvation, and mind control portrayed in lurid George Orwell novels. Contact with Soviets- “taking orders” would be viewed as a crude McCarthyism- was not viewed negatively either. Only actually taking cash would have been looked at badly, because proper people don’t do such things, but all the Soviet spies seemed to have been motivated by idealism, which is quite admirable.
And if actual Soviet intelligence officers are killing your political opponents, what of it? These are terrible people who brought it on themselves, by their hard, inflexible thinking and “knee-jerk” opposition to reform and social justice.
The policy of the establishment toward the Soviet Union was containment. Soviet influence and military power only needed to be corralled into the areas in which communism was an appropriate form of social development. Any Third World communist movement that could plausibly- or implausibly- be regarded as organic and not a product of Soviet influence got a pass.
I like the term “red socialism” for communism, and “white socialism” for fascism and social democracy for traditionalists. I have toyed with the term “blue socialism” for the New Deal system. Unlike red socialism, it tolerates and uses white socialism, although it keeps it on a very tight leash. My thesis is that red socialism has as its ultimate basis German Romanticism, as laid out in Goethe’s Faust Part II. Blue socialism has none of this, and indeed despises it- but it despises everything not of itself. hat our own countrymen and leaders, the best among us (as they remind us repeatedly) could have such affection and indulgence for these hostile, sinister forces is shocking. The idea that there must be a deeper link is very tempting. But it’s not there. The only commonality is the cruelty and arrogance of power-drunk elites, but it’s commonality enough.