Ronald,
Fairly creative but ultimately transparent attempt to shift the onus on
me. That it was implied that my activities here were the equivalent of
Holocaust denial proves my claim. That the gulags were dragged into to the
discussion proves my claim. That you and others used the pronoun "we"
rather than "I" proves my claim. That it is implied that I am "apologist
for Stalin," proves my claim. But I will answer your questions, lest you
find a way to turn a non-response into an explicit claim on my part.
Your questions concerning the accuracy of claims about the Soviet system
have nothing to do with my claims about the tactics that are being used
here. The tactics being deployed by some people on this list are designed
to *prevent* questions about the Soviet system being asked and answered.
So while this point of yours does not go to this "theory" of my views you
have manufactured here, it does point out the path where this discussion
should travel, the path I have worked to keep the discussion on.
Your questions concerning the character of the operation of the systematic
campaign of anti-communism is well-documented and fascinating. I would
think you would be aware of this history and the literature surrounding
this. Anti-communism is one of the most successful propaganda campaigns in
history. It is not, as you imply, a conspiracy. It is out in the open and
in your face. Nothing that happened here was conspiratorial. And the use
of anti-communism in world history it generally not conspiratorial
(although there are clear instances when conspiracies have used
anti-communism). Nor is the employ of anti-communism a knee-jerk reaction.
It is ideological and deeply-felt by many people who use it. For others,
it is a pragmatic strategy to achieve certain goals. This is not a
mysterious thing.
As for personal attacks, I might ask you: if you were having a discussion
about the character of the Soviet Union, and somebody out of the blue said
you were engaging in the equivalent of Holocaust denial, how would you
feel? I took it personally. But the ad hominem in this debate is deeper
than this. That I have become a target, and that the rhetoric on the other
side is ideological, contrasted with my argument being focused on the
Soviet Union in a series of objective questions debunking mythology,
demonstrates my claim of ad hominem.
As for personal experiences of the Soviet system. They may be genuine. But
they are beside the point. I have listened to the heartfelt accounts of
whites who feel wronged by the "liberal establishment" who use "reverse
racism" to prevent them from holding a job they were qualified for. I have
listened to an impassioned and articulate neo-Nazi talk tell me personal
stories of black violence. But I don't let the emotion of these personal
accounts distract me from the bigger picture. These are "horror stories."
They are used to prevent socialized medicine by insurance companies. They
are used to justify the death penalty. They are a tried and true method of
persuasion--the testimonial. I believe that such accounts may be racists
and reactionary in the same way I believe that personal accounts of
suffering at the hands of Soviet authorities may be used for
anti-communist purposes. It is the function of the testimonial that I
expose here. It is not an attempt to diminish personal suffering. It is to
dismiss the relevance of this to the discussion at hand. You can continue
to distort this aspect of my argument, but it should be clear to anybody
who uses reason to debate where reality lies. And I think you are smart
enough to figure this out, too.
Interestingly, while your questions are not a good basis for a critique of
my "theory," they are a rather clear demonstration of the sort of tactics
I have exposed here.
Andy