Has history vindicated him?
>>469770
>Has history vindicated him?
In what sense could Roy Cohn's drunk dog boy be "vindicated?"
He never published a list to be held accountable against. His alcoholism is neither here nor there. His media stunting was shown in his era to be limited. And of course Roy Cohn went against the pentagon.
>>469770
Basically yes, many commies were in the USG at the time despite the protest of commies (>>469821).
http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2013/09/technology-communism-and-brown-scare.html
Pretty much yeah.
>>469856
>http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2013/09/technology-communism-and-brown-scare.html
tl;dr on this screed?
>>469856
Looks peer reviewed, like all blogspot material.
>>469866
>not reading Moldbug in full
But basically that the red scare was a joke of a witch hunt. For the past half a century+ we've been hunting fascist witches with far more vengeance but with far less justifiable reason.
>>469869
Take it from someone in Academia, read, evaluate, and make your own opinion. Not everything can be submitted for publication without potentially career-ending consequences.
>>469896
Yeah I just realized 60% of the site page is the comment section. I'll get on to reading the post.
>Not everything can be submitted for publication without potentially career-ending consequences.
Can vouch.
>>469896
>But basically that the red scare was a joke of a witch hunt. For the past half a century+ we've been hunting fascist witches with far more vengeance but with far less justifiable reason.
Surprisingly good point, I hadn't thought of it that way, I had always subscribed to the idea that it was the other way around at least within American, British, and other Anglo states.
At university campuses, you are more likely to find the existence of marxist socialist, or communist student groups, but never a fascist group. Likewise, it is possible to be hired as an academic who is an apologist of soviet history, marxism, etc... but never fascist ideas or regimes.
All of them are chased out with greater emphasis and righteous abandon.
>>469896
>Take it from someone in Academia
Which is why you're citing black literature? Sure.
Take it from someone in Academia: you're a cunt.
>>469974
I like it how Marxism and its various sub-types that are incredibly common in western universities are often legitimized under the pretense that 'it's not the same Marxism as the USSR' followed by some theoretical hair splitting. While at the same time anything that even smells remotely like fascism, authoritarianism or social Darwinism (let alone biological determinism!) is shunned like the plague due to its vague family resemblance with certain European ideologies.
>>469988
>double-dubs
Wise post.
Same goes for capitalism too btw, as in the completely unregulated, unmolested, 'free market' variety.
The crimes of those ideas at least indirectly killed tens of millions in India alone during British colonial rule under the East India Company, followed by the crown taking over in 1857.
Despite these facts, plenty of academic spots are taken up by people who see nothing wrong with unchecked greed, or that only the private sector is noble, and anybody else is evil.
The same theoretical hair-splitting takes place as well, trying to disown any connection with these past groups that gave a proverbial middle finger to the rest of the planet while they monopolized all the resources and industries globally.
We're then told we live in a world where we are looked after by the good guys, top kek.
>>469856
>many commies were in the USG at the time
I like how people always say things like this as if it's a crime.
>>470009
Might as well be.
>>469988
>not the same Marxism as the USSR' followed by some theoretical hair splitting
Don't call things "hair splitting" if you don't know what they are. Marxism is not something you "follow". Not anymore than you can follow Darwinism. What would that even fucking mean?
>>470019
Because they're a threat to freedom, right?
>>470002
Even if what you're saying is 100% historically accurate (and I'm not going to rebuttal that since we have enough threads about this topic), do you really think 'completely unregulated, unmolested, 'free market'' is the creed in western universities? Even economics departments tend towards the neo-classical school which is utilitarian free market at the very most. Austrian economics, which is the only real ideological free market philosophy, is not even a thing in 99% of institutions.
>>470026
Freedom is a meme. They're a threat to family values and social cohesion.
>>470019
>selling out political freedoms under any circumstances
Shill spotted.
>>469770
No. History has made it more clear than ever that Chiang Kai-Shek lost the war because he was less competent than Mao Tse-Tung, which says something.
>>470032
>muh freebumbles
>>470026
You are aware of a little thing called the Eastern Bloc, right?
>>470028
I didn't say the Austrian school was universally ingrained as an idea in academia in the Anglosphere.
What I said was that it is perfectly fine for people to adopt said ideas that were responsible for the deaths I mentioned, which were implemented by the wealthy and who gave zero fucks about exploiting others or the general welfare in the places they colonized.
The economics departments where I live are very much into neoliberalism and that the free market is somehow ideal, though I understand other places may adopt Keynesian ideas or something else.
>>470039
>neoliberalism
Does anyone but pinkos use this buzzword?
>>470045
>neoliberalism doesn't exist
Maybe in your bubble of 'reality' it doesn't.
>>470045
>pinkos
Underdefined.
>>470039
>What I said was that it is perfectly fine for people to adopt said ideas that were responsible for the deaths I mentioned,
But it's not. The number of people who endorse anything approaching free market economics in western academia is minuscule. More people support soviet-style planning probably.
>neoliberalism
is not a thing
http://personal.lse.ac.uk/venugopr/venugopal2014augneoliberalism.pdf
>>470049
I'm not saying it doesn't exist, I don't even know what the fuck is it supposed to mean, commies use it as a pejorative to describe Friedman type Chicago monetarists or something. I'm just pretty sure nobody on the planet actually identifies as a "neoliberal".
>>470054
>implying I was arguing over it being a majority everywhere
You've gone off the original point begun before, I was using economic liberalism as another example. I agreed that Marxists and Soviet apologists also do the same.
>my destructive theory is fine on campus
>fascism is not though
In other words, people selectively decide for the rest of us which ideas are permissible, and those which are not.
>neoliberalism is not a thing
So the resurgence of economic liberalism isn't a thing? There are no academics in existence who want to privatize water supplies, or completely gut the idea of a government?
Anything vaguely capitalist I can use as a boogeyman = neoliberalism
Anything vaguely authoritarian but not socialist = fascism
Anything actively opposed to socialism = reactionary
etc
just another Marxian horseshit umbrella buzzword
>>470055
Just because people don't actively identify with it, does not mean the ideas attached to it do not exist or are not seeing a resurgence.
Boiled down, it is the reintroduction of laissez-faire principles, or the Austrian school if you like. The people who espouse it don't need to be libertarians, they can also be liberals and conservatives.
That said, nice digits.
>>470067
>So the resurgence of economic liberalism isn't a thing?
I was referring to the semantic usage of "neoliberalism", which as another poster pointed out is nothing but a leftie scare word. I even gave you an empirical meta analysis to support this statement.
>In other words, people selectively decide for the rest of us which ideas are permissible, and those which are not.
I have no idea how you got that from what I was saying.
>>470067
there are no academics, politicians, businessmen, or economists*
Cut that one a bit too short.
>>470075
>everything pro-market is Austrian school
Oh my fucking God, just stop posting.
>>470081
>I was referring to the semantic usage of "neoliberalism", which as another poster pointed out is nothing but a leftie scare word. I even gave you an empirical meta analysis to support this statement.
So its an argument from semantics.
Even if that is true, that doesn't change the overall point I was making about those ideas coming back.
>I have no idea how you got that from what I was saying.
It was mentioned before in the thread... hello? Are you paying attention?
>>470075
>Boiled down, it is the reintroduction of laissez-faire principles, or the Austrian school if you like.
Don't conflate laissez-faire with Austrian school. Austrian school ideas have never, to my knowledge, been implemented in reality.
>>470084
>I used Austrian school and laissez-faire as examples
Okay, you're not paying attention, then.
>>470088
>to my knowledge
Not completely, but people have certainly tried.
This is now turning into a communist-tier 'my special snowflake theory has never been tried' argument.
>>470094
Not him and kinda curious, where were the Austrian policies applied?
>>470094
But I'm not advocating for Austrian policies, or even laissez-faire policies. This isn't even the subject of this discussion. My point was that in case of relative parity, Austrian theories should have been given about the same representation in academia as hardcore Marxist theories, since they're two edges of the spectrum (or, you know, two possible edges). The fact that it's far from being the case supports the claim about a 'brown hunt' more than a 'red hunt' in western universities.
>>470101
I am talking about a truly free market system, or the closest thing to it. The schools used are examples or attempts of those definitions.
I'm also not using anything 'vaguely capitalist' as I was talking about its use in its more extreme or unchecked sense.
You are projecting or trying to imply that anyone who disagrees is therefore a Marxist.
>>470107
>inb4 Somalia
>>470045
>Neoclassical
Common used word
>Liberalism (economic sense)
The name or associated with many political parties across the world such as Liberal Democrats (UK), VVD (Netherlands), Liberal Democratic Party (Japan)
>neo
A common greek prefix everyone should know
>people called neoliberals obviously have a common political cause
"Oh gosh what is this word I can't possibly figure it out????" Why do so many people try to pull this bullshit rhetoric tactic in the millennial generation? It's like everyone all at once has convinced themselves that playing dumb and avoiding unwelcome argument is the same as winning the argument.
>>470109
I never argued against that, in fact, that was my initial responses in this thread.
Hence why I said people cherry pick which ideas they think should be removed or accepted, it wasn't a fucking personal attack.
>>470107
If you have to ask, I already basically answered this further up.
To use one example, the idea that only governments can do wrong and the private sector can do right, which is the core belief of von Mises, and Hayek.
The idea that there aren't global forces that aren't trying to privatize everything under the sun is to live in a bubble.
>>470110
If your definition of "neoliberalism" is unchecked anarchist Austrian craze, then I can assure you it's about as mainstream as trotskyism, that is not at all. The closest politician to hold such views was Ron Paul and he was a marginal amusement if anything.
>>470126
The Austrian craze is one example of it, like I said earlier.
Laissez-faire in many ways does as well, as does certain forms of liberalism and conservatism.
Said this already, it isn't hard to grasp.
Whether or not it is popular is irrelevant.
>>470116
>liberal democrats from the UK
Obviously not the thing we're discussing right here. You don't even have to pretend to be dumb, you just are dumb. Also top kek, "millenials."
>>470134
If your claim is that in the last 30-odd years western politics have moved in a more free market direction, then fine. But I don't see what it has to do with the discussion here.
If anything, the fact that academia remains mired in Marxism and various new-left theories even after the political boat has long sailed just goes to show how detached it is from the rest of society.
>>470134
Then give me a coherent fucking definition of what economic policies you mean instead of throwing around vague terms like laissez faire.
>>470120
>The number of people who endorse anything approaching free market economics in western academia is minuscule.
Utterly delusional. TTP is happening right as we speak and guess what the shills are parroting to shove it down our throats? "hurrr free traaaaade". Privatization? Oh you better believe that's not out of style yet. Austerity is one of the biggest economic events of the last decade. IMF and the World Bank are also a thing.
Further reading
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Consensus
Oh wait, but this didn't happen did it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way
This DEFINITELY didn't ever happen.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yegor_Gaidar
This person I'm pretty sure was made up by the nefarious cultural-marxists
In fact all of the Chicago school is probably one big conspiracy.
>>470148
>If your claim is that in the last 30-odd years western politics have moved in a more free market direction, then fine.
Not that controversial, and it was a side-point that came later.
>But I don't see what it has to do with the discussion here.
I listed it as an example of where people pick and choose which 'destructive ideas' they think are appropriate for people to have in university campuses. Whether or not the whole fucking planet subscribes to it is irrelevant.
The hilarious part is that I was called a pinko for using 'neoliberalism' after agreeing with another poster that fascism is excessively quashed while marxist ideas are allowed more free reign, or at least by comparison.
I then added capitalist ideas are also given similar free reign, by comparison, and apparently that warranted a wall of non-sequiturs, fallacies, playing dumb, or responses stating that various forms of capitalism are totally incomparable, the same level of argumentation offered up by Soviet apologists and communists.
>If anything, the fact that academia remains mired in Marxism and various new-left theories even after the political boat has long sailed just goes to show how detached it is from the rest of society.
Never had a problem with that, in fact it was more or less implied in my first post on this thread.
>he doesn't agree with capitalist ideas
>that makes him a commie
Conversely:
>he doesn't agree with marxism or communism
>therefore he is a capitalist
Same shit, different day.
>>470165
>TTP
>free market
It's a protectionist agreement, son. No one is even claiming otherwise outside of The Daily Worker or whatever you're reading.
(having said that TTP discussions go on /pol/)
Chicago School is center-right at most. It's basically just a corrective of Keynesianism. Read Milton Friedman's book about the great depression.
>>470165
>TTP
>free market
lmao
TTP is a set of laws that will grant megacorps certain rights that effectively RESTRICT free market
>>470170
Neoliberalism is literally a pinko swear word. I'm not even on the hard right and I can tell you that. Find me one book or even academic paper published since the 1980s that uses this term and doesn't come from the left.
>>470150
>these same groups believe in the same free market ideas to varying degree
>hurr durr its all vague, I'm being stupid now, I cannot concede other people or organizations, including those with the most power in the world, don't try to take full advantage of them where they see fit
Continue with the argument from semantics though, as if that explains it all.
>>470180
>I'm going to continue to split hairs and argue from semantics
Wow, its almost like you took one word out of an entire series of points, screened out the rest, and became obsessed with trying to make a point about it.
Who cares?
>>470170
>I then added capitalist ideas are also given similar free reign, by comparison, and apparently that warranted a wall of non-sequiturs, fallacies, playing dumb, or responses stating that various forms of capitalism are totally incomparable, the same level of argumentation offered up by Soviet apologists and communists.
Please qualify your statements.
Are you talking about academia? About general public discourse? About the media? Politics? What?
>>470182
>believe in the same free market
That's the thing - they don't. Monetarist ideas look downright communist compared to Austrians who think you can't have a free market as long as government exists.
>>470185
>Why do people keep calling me a Nazi when I refer to The Eternal Race War Against The Bolshevik Jew? It's just semantics you autists! Who cares!
Also you're talking with several different people.
>>470185
>Are you talking about academia? About general public discourse? About the media? Politics? What?
The ideas exist in all forms, regardless of how popular you think they are.
They are also utilized conveniently by global organizations that want to privatize everything, but apparently these fellows do not exist.
>>470193
So you're basically talking about memes, then.
>>470199
No, for fuck sake.
My point wasn't this or that about fascism or whatever. It was that semantics are important.
Switch "race with" with "class war" and "nazi" with "communist" for all I care. Or with "liking rice" and "being chinese".
>>470197
>its all memes
Your entire existence is to pick one thing out of a series of points, and to discard the rest.
What a surprise.
>>470187
>they don't
Not identically, the difference between say, a libertarian and an anarcho-capitalist, is whether or not government is useful at all and at what level
The same exists between liberals and conservatives who like the free market, or globalist organizations who utilize aspects of it for whatever purpose.
>>470205
>race with
>race war
>>470207
>the very debate about whether the fucking government should exist is just a minor difference
Exactly like I thought, you're so far to the left that everything even vaguely pro-capitalist appears identical to you.
>>470206
>first poster I just responded to (it was posted a few minutes ago)
>hurr ur ignoring it
>other two were for the other poster
You're an absolute retard. Kill yourself.
>>470205
>It was that semantics are important.
lel
See >>469896
>>469974
>>469988
Etc..
This was the original discussion I responded to.
The rest of it is sidetracking, and then some.
>>470217
>whether or not government is useful at all and at what level
>minor difference
Great reading comprehension.
Need some water for all that salt?
>>470223
And pray tell what am I supposed to be salty about? The fact you base your entire argument on buzzwords?
>>470226
About being illiterate and unable to comprehend the points others make. You're also very mercurial.
Just wanted to say I finished reading that Moldbug piece and it's pretty based.
Carry on.
>>469856
>>469896
>Taking Moldbug authoritatively
You realize he essentially just makes shit up and is completely divorced from reality?
He's great for thought experiments and naive political theorizing, but using him as a source for questions more rooted in historical facts is just... misguided I guess.
>>470233
You have yet to make a point without throwing around your shitty umbrella vocabulary.
>neoliberalism is the mainstream
>but what is neoliberalism?
>free market, duh!
>but say, Chicago school is very different from Austrian ideas
>ONLY MINOR DIFFERENCES !!!
There you have it, you feel at liberty to slap the label of "neoliberalism" on everything right of your position and then throw a bitchfit when others aren't dancing to your tune.
>>470241
His point about google and gawker are 100% accurate and has been memefied elsewhere too.
The rest is basically his own personal analysis which you can take with a grain of salt if you wanna.
>>470244
>BUZZWORD BUZZWORD BUZZWORD
>muh vocabulary
It was over neoliberalism, and it is the most trivial argument on this entire thread.
>what is economic liberalism
Problem solved.
My points still stand, because these ideas are permitted at universities, irrespective of whether or not they are popular, which I never said anything about either way.
The most wealthy and powerful people on this planet also subscribe to these ideas... what a fucking surprise?
>>470246
>His point about google and gawker are 100% accurate
Sure.
>his own personal analysis
I'd rather take even the commenters' analysis:
"I've mentioned before that your use of the word "communism" is idiotic, and might as well say it again. There's an expression: "If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, it's probably a duck". Stalin's Russia & Mao's China look like each other in many important respects. Such as mass murder, rather than discrimination lawsuits. The United States doesn't. The idea that communism is harmless because it's native is, again, idiotic. Native-born political ideologies are completely capable of fouling up their nations. Your points about determining who has power are fair enough, but are dragged down by being tied to your retarded bilge on "communism". "
"M^2 owes an apology to Communism for comparing it to Western liberalism; that is the ruling liberalism not the silly rump party known as the CPUSA.
FDR's America and Monnet's "Europe" share traits with Communism because of convergent, not divergent, evolution. And it is the Western left's core processes that give them away as a sui generis form of government.
D.C. and Brussels function differently enough from Communism to warrant their being classified as a distinct species of leftism.
[...]
After 1917, the Soviets worked to maintain support for the new system because the new system was their system if for no other reason than they had to provide some minimal level of stability to hold back popular support for a counter-revolution.
Although I can't bring myself to say Brezhnev was a conservative, we must give him credit for accepting his role as caretaker and not pushing the victorious revolution into off the wall directions.
The Western left keeps driving upheaval forward with worse and worser ideas because the bureaucracies have no central command to alert them the Comrades won and now it's time to stop fucking around and start governing."
>>470253
Alright, cool opinion.
But you're taking it in a more immediate political direction which is a. less interesting (to me) and b. less relevant to this board.
>>470266
>less intervening
>the political side isn't as relevant
Economic liberalism is a subset of classical liberal ideas, which includes the Austrian school, French schools, British schools, fucking everybody... damn you people are retarded.
The sole purpose of this being here was me pointing out people take ideas (like these, and Marxism) as acceptable ideas to have at universities, but fascism isn't, which was stated early on.
The only issue came with the response, and yes it has become relevant due to it.
>state marxists/commies feel their ideologies aren't harmful like fascist ideas on university campuses
Oh yeah, no problem with that.
>mention capitalist ideas take roughly on the same level of acceptance (compared to fascism at least)
Oh no, can't say that.
Even though it is technically true, and the economics departments of many universities across the Anglosphere are far from Marxist, they are definitely in the economic liberal camp, whatever version it takes on.
>>470118
von Mises maybe, but Hayek (Road to Serfdom) and Milton Friedman (carbon taxes) both acknowledged that there were roles for government to play. No serious economist believes that government has no role to play. We believe that a free market is strictly better than central planning, a core idea of Road to Serfdom.
>Aren't global forces..
wat
Methinks you should actually learn something about economics before you try talking about it.
>>470284
>Even though it is technically true, and the economics departments of many universities across the Anglosphere are far from Marxist, they are definitely in the economic liberal camp, whatever version it takes on.
The vast vast vast majority of economics professors are somewhere on the neoclassical spectrum, that is between Keynes and Arrow, with less or more institutional correctives. It's getting technical from here, but I think it suffices to say that politically it can be translated to a very pragmatist and centrist policy with few convictions.
Remember, economists are for the most part just autistic assholes. They don't read Ayn Rand, they just look at the numbers.
>>470292
>Austrian school
>not believing this
>like most other economically liberal ideas
Already responded on the part about what role government plays, I wasn't arguing from an anarcho-capitalist perspective.
Though its true that each of the Austrian school theorists have different views on what government should do. I never detracted from that.
>Methinks you should actually learn something about economics before you try talking about it.
Me thinks you should actually read what you quoted and responded to, because those forces certainly do exist.
>>470292
Hayek isn't really Austrian per se. He's more of a renegade Austrian. He's sometimes considered by them as a person who sold out to the establishment for a shot at Nobel Prize.
>>470299
>Remember, economists are for the most part just autistic assholes. They don't read Ayn Rand, they just look at the numbers.
No shit.
>>470284
Actually vast majority of econ professors are very much Keynesians, so not really liberal or "neoliberal" whatever the fuck that means.
Fascist ideology not being accepted and Marxist economics not being accepted are fundamentally different things. The former isn't accepted because of value bias, the latter because it's factually horseshit. Being an economic Marxist in modern day is similar to believing the Earth is flat. Technically nothing is stopping you, but most people aren't pants on head cousin fucking retarded enough to subscribe to it.
>>470300
What are those global forces that aren't trying to privatize everything under the sun?
>>470312
>Being an economic Marxist in modern day is similar to believing the Earth is flat. Technically nothing is stopping you, but most people aren't pants on head cousin fucking retarded enough to subscribe to it.
hi
>>470312
>[R]ascist ideology not being accepted and Marxist economics not being accepted are fundamentally different things. The latter isn't accepted because of value bias, the former because it's factually horseshit.
>>470322
Piketty not only isn't actually marxist, he even admitted never reading Marx.
>>470329
He literally called his book Capital.
>>470314
>that aren't
I was inferring they were.
>>470312
>Keynes
His ideas were built on top of economic liberalism and still count as a form of capitalism, regardless of whether or not people like his ideas.
Economic liberalism is not a hard concept to grasp, its a collection and schools of thought that have been a part of Western civilization for centuries now.
>Fascist ideology not being accepted and Marxist economics not being accepted are fundamentally different things.
That is besides the point, because capitalism also has a history of being destructive, something I pointed out many posts ago.
The point is that institutions or the people within them pick and choose which economic or political ideas they think can be acceptable for students to organize around, or for academics to write about. Both Marxism and Capitalism are given more free reign than Fascism, and no, not all forms of Fascism are the ethnocentrist kind.
>>470333
I literally called my phonebook "The Quran"
>>470346
Did it sell millions of copies among observant Muslims?
>>470015
>accusations that he's going to try to turn the U.S. into Nazi Germany
I smell Soviet Union, oh pardon me, Russia, behind those "accusations".
>>470345
I actually agree about Keynes being liberal. But liberalism=\=right. Liberalism is quite the political center for the most part. Even Mises said reactionary monarchism is bad mmm'kay.
>>470354
Keynes isn't considered an economic liberal by free market puritans. Outside that bubble, he most certainly is seen that way.
Just because his ideas don't mesh with you, doesn't mean he isn't, same goes with Marxists who try to distance themselves from Marxist-Leninism, Stalinism, or Maoism.
>>470358
>I actually agree about Keynes being liberal. But liberalism=\=right. Liberalism is quite the political center for the most part.
Well... Keynes differs, sure, but there are different forms of liberalism. Believe it or not, there are forms of conservatism that are centrist, and libertarianism that are both centrist and leftist.
The kind of economics Keynes espouses is centre-right or middle-right, just not far right.
>>470348
No, muslims cannot read.
Anyway, how is Picketty a Marxist? He's just a TAX EVERYTHING kind of socialist, he doesn't advocate the proletariat taking over the means of production in a violent revolution and then the state somehow magically vanishes, which is, you know, a pretty key aspect of marxism.
I don't think he ascribes to Marxian dialectics either.
>>470359
Keynes seen as a free marker kind of guy? The fuck are you smoking comrade
>>470373
Ironically I myself am closest to a Keynesian.
>>470379
Then why do you keep responding as if you are a religious adherent to the free market, or that if anyone disagrees with it, it makes them a marxist socialist?
>>470369
Not him but as far as I remember Keynes talked about his corrective measures (boosting aggregate demand etc) as merely temporary means, which should be halted once equilibrium is restored. He wasn't pro-planning by definition or anything.
Having said that he did have complex attitude towards political liberalism. He has one essay entitled "Am I a Liberal?" that gives a very ambivalent answer. I think that in the end he would have liked to see something like a technocratic elite the runs the economy without the abolishment of private property, a system akin to what Galbraith called the new industrial state, but alas we're too dumb for it at the moment.
>>470386
I don't actually, I don't even consider real free market desirable. It's just some idiotic strawman you pulled out of your butt right now.
>>470395
Not sure what you're aiming at.
>>470399
>I never implied that you're a Marxist
So easy to mistake when you keep referring to me as one by linking the above.
>>470409
Who are you quoting right now? Genuinely have no idea what you're talking about. I very much implied that you're a marxist or at least a socialist, in fact I outright called you such.
>>470421
>Who are you quoting right now?
idk, anonymity and all that. You responded to this >>470373 which was in response to >>470369
If you're not that individual and you just misquoted the wrong response, then I understand.
>the rest of your response
What?
So you're saying it was a strawman, but now you're implying you did mean it?
>>469821
This x 10. He claimed to have a secret list, but could never produce it and allied himself with a shifty self serving queer who killed his career
>>470452
Homophobe much, communist fuck?
Clearly.
He was an alcoholic homosexual who lied about his war record. There's nothing to vindicate. He was a degenerate who knew communism was a hot topic so he rambled about til people were tired and his liver gave out.
>>470107
Arguably the drug market.
>>472857
Imagine the parallel reality where Orson Welles would have ran against him for his senate seat like he was considering.
>>472871
*run
Learn basic grammar if you want to remain part of this board.
>>470452
I was always under the impression Cohn was using him pretty much. He needed an Anglo face to use for his shenanigans and what is a better cover than a soft-minded drunk mick?
Cohn was an interesting dude on the other hand. He was an associate of Trump during the mogul's first steps in the NY RE market. Some people see him as a direct source of inspiration for The Don.
>>472857
We don't know if he was homo, but his buddy Roy Cohn definitely was.
>>470703
>>470787
There's a measured hypocrisy to Roy Cohn's romantic relationships and willingness to destroy the military industrial complex to keep his boy.
But honestly Roy Cohn being a massive faggot isn't a problem. Nor something to be vindicated. Just like McCarthy's alcoholism isn't a problem or something to be vindicated.
Roy Cohn's position that bourgeois liberals in the Democrats were identical with Communist aims was pretty much refuted in 1989 when the COMECON / Warsaw Pact countries disaffiliated from Soviet relationships. Or with the election of Kennedy / LBJ both of whom were anti-Soviet hawks.
"Vindication" is a really shitty attitude to people. People can't be vindicated. Ideas or claims can be.
Never mind that most of the security apparatus of the West was set up under Democrat controlled executives and similarly the more centrist of the two parties in the US dominated countries generally.
>>474424
The Pentagon is a liberal quagmire. I don't think anyone seriously refutes that. Anyway socialism comes in all hues, not only rooskie red.
>>474509
He was a Kirkian conservative imo. The fact of the matter is that US politics moved in a distinctly leftward trend since Goldwater, which makes McCarthyism and anyone associated with it an ideological pariah.
>>474521
I'd suggest that the centre's moved distinctly rightwards with the development of monetarist economic and social policy from 1972. So it is a narrowing towards a hard right that excludes the kind of right that McCarthy constituted.
Obviously my analysis ends in 1989.
