If the US has been controlled by globohomo since the early 20th century, how come it fought the USSR and communism so hard during the Cold War? Why did they try to suppress liberal movements like the hippies?

submitted by FriedrichLudwig from self.debatealtright

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]NeoRail 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

If the US has been controlled by globohomo since the early 20th century, how come it fought the USSR and communism so hard during the Cold War?

Liberalism and communism are two different and conflicting visions of materialist egalitarianism. They will always be in bitter conflict against one another, anarcho-communist larpers excepted. You should also keep in mind that the rich elites behind liberal materialism will nonetheless be unable to retain anything at all under communism, even if they were hypothetically accepting of the ideology - the practical side of this conflict mustn't be overlooked.

Why did they try to suppress liberal movements like the hippies?

This can be explained in two ways. The first is that the American Republic was and to some extent still is an Enlightenment project. While the Enlightenment is still antitraditional, it offered a worldview and certain preferences to its adherents. These were in obvious conflict with the more anarchist and socialist conceptions of the state, so the old school liberal elements tried to resist that type of reforms. Another thing to keep in mind is that several groups of more or less rightist orientation were still caught up in parts of the US state apparatus and tried to rally all of their influence in order to respond to this new challenge. They failed, as is to be expected given the circumstances.

Also, if the US is controlled by hostile elites that want to rewrite history and facts to promote their ideology and destroy western civilization (like most here, I know this for a fact), how can we know what they say about the USSR/communism is accurate?

By and large, they don't. This doesn't mean that communism is good, of course, but it's bad for entirely different reasons than the ones liberals list. If the communists had won the Cold War I strongly doubt things would be as bad, but that doesn't really mean much given the present situation.

[–]FriedrichLudwig[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Thanks for the detailed response.

This doesn't mean that communism is good, of course, but it's bad for entirely different reasons than the ones liberals list.

What's the difference between the anti-communist arguments used by liberals vs the right?

[–]NeoRail 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It depends on who you ask. I am a lot more economically left than most so I go quite far. Generally, however, most people on the right can agree that materialism is the real problem behind communism, not this or that system of economic management or at least not just the system of economic management. As you may know, Marxism reduces everything to a progressive arc of economic development, meaning that things like ideals, creeds, causes, nations, religions, the family, cultures, institutions and values are all just economic tools designed with the purpose of extracting "surplus value". Marxist materialism does not even recognise the consciousness in any meaningful way. To many, many people, that is an utterly abhorrent, put aside inaccurate, worldview.

There can also be disagreement on the nature of the economic problem, but again, it depends on who you ask. A lot of people double or triple down on the liberal argument about "communist misery". There is certainly some truth to it in certain respects and especially during certain times. The early Soviet industrialisation and urbanisation had some very disgusting side effects, for example. Similarly, while the "bread lines" argument is a total joke for almost all the existence of the USSR, during and immediately after the civil war and the second world war there was genuine starvation and profound misery. Food shortages were also troublesome during the final years of professional idiot Gorbachev's leadership, although ironically the phase of liberalism that followed was far more destructive than anything even he could achieve.