Definitions: None Dare...pp. 22-26

 Words have meanings. Specific meanings. Shared meanings, that's how language works, how information is conveyed, and not only how society functions but how it was created in the first place. Even the gruntings of our cave-dwelling ancestors had shared meanings. When we view the current political climate, we can see the problem over specific words. If we must debate over words it means progress must be halted until we can agree on a definition. 

So in this week's section, we finally get to the author's definition of "communism/socialism" which is already problematic since those two things are not identical. That however is the least of our problems. Before we get into the text itself we should be mindful that the book was written during the cold war, not the current times. The Vietnam War was still going, with the U.S. clearly on the losing end of it. So the fear of Communism is different for the readers of the book than it is for the right-wing conspiracy theorist of today. The today person is merely borrowing the fear-mongering of the past to create an ethereal fear of literally anything that isn't conservative right-wing. So with that being said, the book opens with a stark and surprising claim: that Communism isn't something that is run from Peking or Moscow. Communism is, instead, being controlled in New York City, Paris, and London. The controllers, they don't even believe in the intellectual or pseudo-philosophy of Communism, rather they use it to exploit the poor who believe in it, in order to stay rich. (pp. 22,34)

Ok, that's an interesting claim that if true, would make those men in NYC, Paris, and London: NOT FUCKING COMMUNISTS. If they don't believe in the ideology, don't practice it, they aren't that thing. They are fascists, corporate oligarchs, or whatever. I get what Allen thinks he's trying to say here. He's trying to say that people like Castro, Stalin, and Mao might be real Communists but the whole thing is a lie by people that aren't really Communists but get the exploitative power of the idea. This, might be true, I doubt Stalin suffered the starvation of his fellow citizens during the siege of Stalingrad; but this is true of any ideology. 

Using an ideology to create class strife in order to divide the working population so that they never overthrow their masters is exactly the type of thing that modern Socialists warn about. If they claim, the poorest inner-city ghetto youth and the poorest trailer park dwelling redneck ever realized that they have more in common with each other than they do with the wealthy members of their own areas and race those at the top would be in trouble. I think U.S. president Johnson said that racism in the South was fueled by those in power because as long as they could "convince the lowest white man that he's better than the best colored man he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him someone to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you." 

There's a reason that Marx called religion the opiate of the masses, it's because it fueled division between the working classes while at the same time providing them with a reason to be happy in their place. The problem in this book is that Allen is borrowing the ideas of socialism but then saying that it's wrong. 

Allen claims that this information all comes from top people in intelligence that he's privately interviewed. I don't want to call him a liar, but I can't think of another word for it. Or maybe I'm wrong because Allen provides a single example: the Reece committee investigation. During the Red Scare, the government bowed to the power of paranoia and began investigating what were called "Un-American" activities. People are generally familiar with this: Joe McCarthy, the HUAC, Hollywood blacklisting, etc. 

The Reece Committee was formed to investigate whether non-profits were supporting anti-American groups and causes. This is made even more absurd by the fact that the Reece committee followed the Cox committee investigation of literally the same thing which found that it was not happening. So even if, you thought, "ok, well maybe it's worth looking into at least." The government looked found nothing, and at the insistence of Norman Dodd, it did it again. Dodd focused on donations to Columbia, Harvard, University of Chicago, and UC California as being evidence of the very rich trying to subvert the U.S. government. This is the best irony. If a wealthy  person wants to do what they will with their own money, Dodd and the Reece committee claim that they shouldn't be allowed to unless that cause fits some predetermined definition of supporting the state? Ok, when they say it out loud do they hear it? 

Allen continues admitting that he is not using "Communism" in the proper sense. Ok, then what the hell are we talking about? Allen isn't talking about the Soviet Union or China; again, he's using it as a scare word and the problem is that it worked. Now, everything is "communist" or "socialist;" even stuff that has nothing to do with political or economic systems. "Black Lives Matter" is not either of those things, but you'll find it smeared as such even though it makes no sense to call it either of those things. 

It doesn't matter because the readers of this book (not blog, you people are smart) will have no idea of the difference. Allen admits this, saying that if you went out on the street and asked Americans if they were against Communism you'd have 99% agreement. If you asked them what Communism is though, you'd have little to no agreement on the subject and god help you if you ask a political science professor. Their definition is bonkers, it talks about Hegelian dialectic and Feuerbachian materialism and then tries to confine it to political entities. Mao's Communism would be different from Castro's or Stalin's or Tito's. Of course, Allen says this is laughable but it prevails on campuses and even in the State Department. The problem is that Allen's attempt to lampoon the way smart people talk actually gives us a more correct definition of State Communism. Through away the general definition and Chinese Communism was vastly different than the Russian or Cuban version. That smart people would understand this in the State Department as part of an effort to fight it, is a good thing.

Yet the different definitions of the general public are taken to be a bad thing because we can't fight what we do not understand. Yes, I absolutely agree. The average American is an idiot. Before the Iraq War (2nd one) most Americans in the Bush administration didn't understand that there were two prevailing sects of Islam--and those two groups hated each other. It caused some problems when Hussein's minority was toppled and the majority began retaliating. 

Allen even gives a good analogy here. He talks about a football game between the Packers and a general group of amateurs. The Packers cannot win the game if they don't understand what they are playing. It's a good analogy and spot on. 

 Allen recognizes the problem, claims that it is a problem, calls it a problem, offers an analogy to drive it home to people still confused...and then adds to it by offering his own definition: "AN INTERNATIONAL, CONSPIRATORIAL DRIVE FOR POWER ON THE PART OF MEN IN HIGH PLACES WILLING TO USE ANY MEANS TO BRING ABOUT THEIR DESIRED AIM--GLOBAL CONQUEST." (it's in all caps in the book)

So, is Allen reading his own book? This doesn't help your point and nothing about this is communism.