MovieChat Forums > J. Edgar (2011) Discussion > Why did American communism need suppress...

Why did American communism need suppressing?


Why did Hoover and other fascists feel that that cause warranted the subversion of the Constitution?

§« The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters. »§

reply



Well, I never understood why the irony never hit them over the head so hard that their skulls caved in from it!

We can only have true freedom in America when we vigorously suppress the freedom of those saying things we don't want to hear!

reply

We call ourselves a 'free' nation and demand that corporations have 'freedom of speech' - but then go on witch hunts for communists and anyone else to the left of Bill Clinton. My dad was a communist during the Great Depression. He was proud of it, and I'm proud of him for it. I don't agree with communism, but they have the same right to political speech and assembly as anyone else. Hoover was pretty much in step with the rest of American government then or now - anyone with 'different' opinions must be watched, hunted down, and suppressed.

reply

The U.S. and the majority of its citizens have always had a disdain for communism (more so historically). Communism goes against the ideals of Capitalism that the U.S. was founded upon.

The years that this movie is set (1919-1970s) is a key to understanding Hoover's hatred of Communism and what he called subversive groups. In 1917, the Bolshevik communists overthrew the Romanov dynasty in Russia and the country plunged into chaos (not that things weren't chaotic in Russia before the Revolution). In the U.S. many feared that a similar "revolution" would occur and that the government would be "overthrown" by foreign Communists. This is the First Red Scare.

Also - many European immigrants that came to the U.S. found jobs in factories and back then working conditions were deplorable. These laborers formed unions and went on (sometimes violent) strikes disrupting the country at times.

Hoover's mindset was common at the time.

I'm not defending nor am I praising him but he did centralize the F.B.I. and made it into what it is today instead of the backwards institution it was back then.

reply

The above message is very perceptive.

The repression unleashed by Hoover was both terrible and totally Un-American. Yet equally frightening to me is this knee-jerk defense of Soviet-style communism you see expressed here (and many other places too).

Because the Soviet system was horrible! It's sometimes called the 'other' great holocaust of the 20th century and for good reason. Any of you ever read Gulag Archipelago? The story by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn about the Soviet forced labor camp system. One story in that book always stays with me.

This was just after the Soviets "collectivized" the farms with the result there was a widespread famine. Millions starved to death. Anyway, there was an awards dinner in one of the rural provinces. A farmer who had actually managed to EXCEED his quota was honored. He'd grown a huge amount of wheat or corn or whatever. Now, the way the Soviet system worked was, first everything he'd grown was immediately taken from him and in return the farmer and his family were "allotted" barely enough grain to survive on over the long brutal Russian winter.

Upon accepting his award the farmer meekly asked if, instead of a plaque, could his family be "awarded" a bag of grain? "That's possible, isn't it?" he asked.

For that implied SLANDER against the Soviet system the farmer was immediately arrested and sentenced to twenty years hard labor.

Do you understand why people hated and feared that system?

reply

[deleted]

Reportedly there were about 3,000 Americans who volunteered to go to Spain to fight for the democratically elected government against rebels forces led by General Francisco Franco. The Soviet Union supplied a lot of weaponry to the government forces and their allies. Ironically Joseph Stalin signed a non-aggression pact with Nazi Germany -- a strong supporter of Franco's -- in 1939, thus sealing Spain's fate.

What was scary then -- and what is kind of scary about the previous message -- was the unqualified support many of these young idealists gave to the Soviet Union. How they turned a blind eye to the brutal human rights violations already taking place in the USSR. The purges, the show trials, the summary executions, the mass jailings, the young idealists ignored all this evidence of Soviet inhumanity. Instead they clung to the notion that the Soviet Union -- because of the ideals it professed to believe, but only honored in the breach -- was a paradise of social justice. This while millions of Russians were brutally slaughtered by their own government.

This stubborn refusal to see reality, this clinging to self-delusion, was very scary to people who feared it could happen here.

And it could've. No one can say it couldn't have.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

It did happen in the USA. The genocide of the Native Americans, Slavery, Countless war crimes and human rights violations to this day.

reply

I am no great fan of Stalin and USSR. But the timeline in your mail is surely wrong. The Nazi-Soviet pact was signed on August 23rd 1939 (when Stalin realized that GB and France are not interested in doing the same with him). The fate of Spain was sealed some months before.

reply


Yeah, have to agree with Nikistx. If J. Edgar were still in charge, highly doubtful 9/11 would have happened.


End of the world? So what.

reply

Mmm-hmm. Just like the assassinations of JFK, RFK and MLK didn't.

Memory says, I did that. Pride replies, I could not have done that. Eventually, memory yields.

reply

Well, always hard to stop the lone wackos. I'm guessing, after the 93 WTC incident, Hoover would have had wiretaps up the wazoo and many many deportations. Our 9/11 religion of peace friends, most likely would never have been here in the first place, or deported when their visas expired. Hmm, common sense, whoda thunk?

End of the world? So what.

reply

Yes, suppression of civil liberties and violations of people's constitutional rights is something to be celebrated. Of course, miraculously, agents in 2001 had identified the potential dangers of the future terrorists, even managed to put a notice in the hands of the president, without resorting to the illegal activities of Hoover. All that was missing was competence.

Hoover, on the other hand, would've supported some kind of sweeping hysteria of deporting and harassing people in the Muslim community, creating a civil rights nightmare which any sentient defense attorney could've ripped to shreds in a modern court system unencumbered by Cold War fears or a willingness to look the other way when dealing with the rights of those not popular amongst the populace. The 1950s are long gone, thank god.

reply

I totally agree with estratton. The mindlessness of some of the messages posted here is...about what I expect. LOL

To be fair to the FBI, though, a major problem with the pre-9/11 (and post-9/11) intelligence gathering was the sheer volume of information collected and the almost impossible task of vetting it in a timely fashion.

.

reply

This stubborn refusal to see reality, this clinging to self-delusion, was very scary to people who feared it could happen here.

And it could've. No one can say it couldn't have.

All in all, arguably the US had to have 'zeal" when confronting old Uncle Joe's system here. Makes sense that weight was needed from the right when you had the big push from the communist side here during that time. Add to that the experience the US had with German saboteurs and infiltrators here in the 40's. J Edgar certianly learned alot going through all that.

reply

Established White Protestants from Old Money families (like Hoover) saw Communism as a threat to themselves, that it would be a revolution of poor people against the old establishment money. In the 1920s, the "Communism" hunt was directed towards immigrants in labor unions, by the 1950s it was directed towards blacks in the Civil Rights Movement.

reply

Read your history books people. Read "The Foresaken: An American Tragedy", and Robert Conquest "Reflections of a Ravaged Century". Learn about what the Bolsheviks did to the Russian people and civil society there. There has been no justice for the USSR's 30 million +++ victims. No Hollywood movies of the genocides in Ukraine and the Urals/the wiping out of supposed "kulaks" in class war, or the death camps at Kolyma and the other gulags. The 90s' and post cold war times opened the long closed archives of the USSR, and proved that Hoover and McCarthy were not just crazy and paranoid after all. There were thousands of spies and agitators and subversives that were sent into the USA to create anarchy. Freedom does not mean "anything goes". Freedom needs to be protected from things like Radical Islam, Sharia law, White supremacy, Fascism and Communism. Because those ideologies would exploit 'freedom' in order to take that very freedom away. If the subject had been "what was so bad about Hitler?", people would be offended. Just as I am offended by this ignorant question.

reply

Lozbey:

I disagree with your argument about having Federal Government "protect us" from extremist factions via behavior like Hoover's and McCarthy's, and things like the Patriot Act.

However I do thank and respect you alot for coming out and calling Communism what it really is, basically the same concepts as Nazism. All normal people consider Nazism to be evil, but it seems that alot of younger people today just seem to think that Soviet Communism "wasn't that bad". This seems to be a recurring trend ESPECIALLY among elite professors in Academia, many who idolize Marx and think his ideas are still actually possible.

It's just plain moronic

reply

I know really. It seems like these days it's fashionable for people to be sympathic to Socialism, as it it means that people can still be given wages for doing the same work as even the wealthy. But consider that in actual practice, it had much worse results than Nazism. If the government found that a Nazi uprising was about to occur, wouldn't you call for its suppression?

reply

You and DonMachiavelli need to get your terms straight. What's fashionable is to take a talking point from some ideology and assume it's truth. There is a big difference between Socialism, and Soviet Communism. If you read Marx, you'd realize that very little of what he wrote was in any way, shape, or form represented by Soviet Communism. Furthermore, there are plenty of highly democratic countries that have implemented a pretty robust amount of Socialist programs. They are probably even more democratic than the US. It's wrong to equate socialism with the Soviet style of government.

reply

Most textbooks allow the terminology to be used quite interchangably. You're probably referring to "Marxism."

reply

[deleted]

You're right, Socialism is exactly like a Nazi uprising and inevitably results in countries falling into corruption and despair! That's why Canada and the Scandinavian countries, which all have Socialist programs and systems in place, are absolutely the least democratic and least prosperous! ...oh wait, that's not right at all.

What you need to realise is that the philosophy and practice of socialism can be just as good or just as bad as the philosophy and practice of capitalism. It all depends on the execution. And most of the fascist countries that call themselves "socialist democratic republics" are in fact not socialist at all, but only use the words "socialist" and "democratic" to make themselves appealing to people when in fact they are rapacious, blood-thirsty capitalists. China is not a true Communist country by the political definition of communism---if they were, they wouldn't be such a huge economic threat. It's only because they have an intensely capitalistic drive to take over other economies that they're a threat.

reply

Communism has never worked.

The EU is going bankrupt.

reply

The only notice the President had was that terrorist might try to hijack a plane and ram it into a building. Do you know how many of these vague threats the president receives on a daily bases. It's not like Bush got this warning on a day before 9/11 and names and planes they were going to try to take down.

reply

Because it goes completely against what the United States stands for.

reply

While watching this movie I couldn't help noticing some of the same things going on today, such as the liberals and the media trying to shut anyone up who doesn't agree with them. Anyone who dares to criticze Obama is labelled a racist and degraded by the mainstream media. Not to mention the media's covering up of questionable activity by this administration, things that the people of this country should be informed of. If Hoover was a facist so are many democrats and liberals today.

reply

... Anyone who dares to criticze Obama is labelled a racist and degraded by the mainstream media. ...


Typical right-wing disinformation. (This board is being so politicized.)

Care to cite an example of an Obama critic being degraded as a racist in the mainstream media?

reply

You are wrong R Meyer. Colin Powell's former Chief of Staff, Janeanne Garofalo, Alec Baldwin, Rosie O'Donnel, Chris Matthews from MSNBC, just to name a few, have all said that about Republicans. I am quite sure there are many others, but those are just the ones I remember off the top of my head. Furthermore, I don't have to prove anything to you, what I posted is true. I can't believe you think this doesn't happen. By the way I am not a right winger, but of course the labels come out when anyone who disagrees with the President voices their opinion. And yes, this board became politicized because J. Edgar was fighting Communism which I believe is a political party.

reply

Colin Powell's former Chief of Staff, Janeanne Garofalo, Alec Baldwin, Rosie O'Donnel, Chris Matthews from MSNBC, just to name a few, have all said that about Republicans.


You said mainstream media. None of the people you list above are "media" with the exception of Chris Mathews and he's more of a pundit than a reporter. In other words, someone who states his opinion on things rather than reporting news stories. By listing someone like Alec Baldwin, I have to ask, do you know what the word "media" means? Because it sounds like you don't.

Are you in high school yet?

Besides which, merely listing names is not "proof" of anything. You're doing to them what you accuse other people of doing to critics of Obama.

Anyone who dares to criticze Obama is labelled a racist...


I repeat, that accusation is ludicrous.

reply

Well, since you repeated it, then it must be true.

reply

Are you in high school yet?
Possibly, but more likely he's green, has a strangely shaped head, and is extremely flexible...

reply