Is liberalism in crisis in the West?

[Augustus]

Because Article 124 of the Soviet Constitution said: "In order to ensure to citizens freedom of conscience, the church in the U.S.S.R. is separated from the state, and the school from the church. Freedom of religious worship and freedom of antireligious propaganda is recognized for all citizens."

It also guaranteed freedom of speech.

Do you think that people had freedom of speech or it was ever the intention to grant this prior to the utopian stage of the project?

Why do you think the constitution gave people a right that they obviously did not have in reality? Should we say that the Soviets had no intention of denying people free speech as they enshrined it in the constitution?

Totalitarian regimes can say they give people all the rights in the world, because the cheque never has to be cashed.

It is a sales pitch, advertising copy for public consumption.

People will have these rights when we get to our utopia, and by then they will have no need to exercise them because wrongthink will no longer exist.

You can say people have freedom of speech while creating a secret police state and purging anyone who says the wrong thing.

You can say people have freedom of religion while destroying 99% of churches and leaving a handful a for overseas propaganda.

And some people will lap it up and say "look at how equitable the Soviets are" and make excuses for all the oppression because they say nice things.

Their goal was a socialist state which ideally would eventually evolve into communism. Their words, ideology, and actions would align with that goal. Since their Constitution guarantees freedom of religious worship, then it seems more likely that any negative or hostile actions taken against religion would align with the goal of wanting to get rid of what they may have seen old remnants of Tsarist autocracy.

As a form of false consciousness that undermines the moral and ideological underpinnings of the communist state, it could not exist any more than a thriving Jewish population could exist in the 1000 year reich.

"It is our duty to destroy every religious world-concept... If the destruction of ten million human beings, as happened in the last war, should be necessary for the triumph of one definite class, then that must be done and it will be done." Yemelyan Yaroslavsky - leader of The League of militant atheists

Well, the Marxists weren't the only ones in the 19th and 20th centuries with certain misgivings about religion. I don't think religion was really their primary focus, as Stalin's goal seemed more focused on industrialization and military buildup. I think he and other Bolsheviks blamed the church for keeping Russia backwards while Western Europe advanced much further. Their actions would indicate a desire to disempower religion and keep it impotent, so that it can't gain any real power or influence over the masses, but not to eradicate it entirely.

It wasn’t some pragmatic realpolitik, it was a fundamental underpinning of the entire worldview. Atheism wasn't simply incidental.


the criticism of religion is the prerequisite of all criticism...

It is, therefore, the task of history, once the other-world of truth has vanished, to establish the truth of this world. It is the immediate task of philosophy, which is in the service of history, to unmask self-estrangement in its unholy forms once the holy form of human self-estrangement has been unmasked. Thus, the criticism of Heaven turns into the criticism of Earth, the criticism of religion into the criticism of law, and the criticism of theology into the criticism of politics.

The only liberation of Germany which is practically possible is liberation from the point of view of that theory which declares man to be the supreme being for man

Marx - A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right


Lenin: "Atheism is a natural and inseparable part of Marxism"

Leon Trotsky: “We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life”.

Nikolai Bukharin: Many weak-kneed communists reason as follows: 'Religion does not prevent my being a communist. I believe both in God and in communism. My faith in God does not hinder me from fighting for the cause of the proletarian revolution.'

This train of thought is radically false. Religion and communism are incompatible, both theoretically and practically.

Every communist must regard social phenomena (the relationships between human beings, revolutions, wars, etc.) as processes which occur in accordance with definite laws. The laws of social development have been fully established by scientific communism on the basis of the theory of historical materialism which we owe to our great teachers Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. This theory explains that social development is not brought about by any kind of supernatural forces. Nay more. The same theory has demonstrated that the very idea of God and of supernatural powers arises at a definite stage in human history, and at another definite stage begins to disappear as a childish notion which finds no confirmation in practical life and in the struggle between man and nature...

Scientific communism, in its judgements concerning natural phenomena, is guided by the data of the natural sciences, which are in irreconcilable conflict with all religious imaginings.

For whatever it's worth, the Muslims in the USSR fared better than they did when they were under the Tsar

The Tatar’s might not agree with that…

In the 1950s, it was the same existential threat that 1930s Europe faced. Keep in mind that many Americans were coaxed into believing in communism as an internal threat. There's still a certain legacy of that line of thought existent in the political culture, as you might have noticed.

America, with a tiny communist party, an ocean away was not remotely the same as central Europe, with powerful socialist/communist movements, running street battles, etc. in the 1930s.

Marxists were shocked that the revolution happened in Russia, they expected it in one of the more 'advanced' European countries, like Germany.'

There was no realistic chance of the US becoming communist in the 50s, there was in many European countries in the early 20th C.

Just because the Cold War American right was paranoid, doesn't mean you had to be paranoid to fear communism in pre-war Europe.

If the Germans feared Christian Russia in 1914, then the fact that they still feared Atheist Russia in the 1930s would suggest that atheism may not have had anything to do with their rational reasons to fear Russia. I would suggest it was more nationalistic than religious.

It’s not about a country but an ideology that had a good deal of support across Europe.

Germans didn't have to fear a Soviet invasion, they could genuinely be worried about a Communist takeover from within.

Both the Communists and the fascists were working to destroy liberal democracy. One succeeded in gaining power.

People had good reason to be concerned about living in a communist country, as they did about living in a fascist one too. It may not have been probable, but it was certainly realistically possible given the wrong turn of events hence fascists and communists did take over multiple countries and had significant movements in many others.

Well, if we're talking about genuine threats in terms of the USSR - or Russia or China in today's context - then it seems that "godless" or "communist" probably never really did make any sense.

I'm not really talking about national threats, but what would be reasonable for an individual to be concerned about in those very uncertain times.

From the perspective of an individual in 1930s Germany why would they not make sense?

There were no communists who could gain power? No important communists had stated their intention ti eradicate religion? The league of militant godless and godless 5 year plans didn't exist?

 

[Stevicus]

It also guaranteed freedom of speech.

Do you think that people had freedom of speech or it was ever the intention to grant this prior to the utopian stage of the project?

Why do you think the constitution gave people a right that they obviously did not have in reality? Should we say that the Soviets had no intention of denying people free speech as they enshrined it in the constitution?

As it's often said within U.S. political discourse, freedom of speech is not an absolute right. The existence of certain exceptions does not prove that the right itself has been abrogated. The U.S. just has different ways of restricting people. Some European countries are even more restrictive than the U.S., yet even that would be considered "freedom of speech."

The question is, where is that happy medium? Where is the point on the continuum where a reasonable restriction on a right suddenly turns into oppression and authoritarianism? Is there any standard or mathematical formula we can apply to resolve this question? Or is it just a matter of "rules for thee but not for me"?

As a form of false consciousness that undermines the moral and ideological underpinnings of the communist state, it could not exist any more than a thriving Jewish population could exist in the 1000 year reich.

"It is our duty to destroy every religious world-concept... If the destruction of ten million human beings, as happened in the last war, should be necessary for the triumph of one definite class, then that must be done and it will be done." Yemelyan Yaroslavsky - leader of The League of militant atheists



It wasn’t some pragmatic realpolitik, it was a fundamental underpinning of the entire worldview. Atheism wasn't simply incidental.


the criticism of religion is the prerequisite of all criticism...

It is, therefore, the task of history, once the other-world of truth has vanished, to establish the truth of this world. It is the immediate task of philosophy, which is in the service of history, to unmask self-estrangement in its unholy forms once the holy form of human self-estrangement has been unmasked. Thus, the criticism of Heaven turns into the criticism of Earth, the criticism of religion into the criticism of law, and the criticism of theology into the criticism of politics.

The only liberation of Germany which is practically possible is liberation from the point of view of that theory which declares man to be the supreme being for man

Marx - A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right


Lenin: "Atheism is a natural and inseparable part of Marxism"

Leon Trotsky: “We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life”.

Nikolai Bukharin: Many weak-kneed communists reason as follows: 'Religion does not prevent my being a communist. I believe both in God and in communism. My faith in God does not hinder me from fighting for the cause of the proletarian revolution.'

This train of thought is radically false. Religion and communism are incompatible, both theoretically and practically.

Every communist must regard social phenomena (the relationships between human beings, revolutions, wars, etc.) as processes which occur in accordance with definite laws. The laws of social development have been fully established by scientific communism on the basis of the theory of historical materialism which we owe to our great teachers Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. This theory explains that social development is not brought about by any kind of supernatural forces. Nay more. The same theory has demonstrated that the very idea of God and of supernatural powers arises at a definite stage in human history, and at another definite stage begins to disappear as a childish notion which finds no confirmation in practical life and in the struggle between man and nature...

Scientific communism, in its judgements concerning natural phenomena, is guided by the data of the natural sciences, which are in irreconcilable conflict with all religious imaginings.

All of this really proves is that Marx and many Soviet atheists were against religion, which no one is denying. It's also a common tactic to mine quotes which might cast certain groups of people in a negative light. Anti-Muslims might trot out a picture of Muslims carrying a sign that "Islam will rule the world," which some might use as evidence that Muslims are a mortal threat. Is it rational to believe that? You tell me.

The Tatar’s might not agree with that…

The Tatars have a unique history, although I'm not sure how it's relevant here.

America, with a tiny communist party, an ocean away was not remotely the same as central Europe, with powerful socialist/communist movements, running street battles, etc. in the 1930s.

Marxists were shocked that the revolution happened in Russia, they expected it in one of the more 'advanced' European countries, like Germany.'

There was no realistic chance of the US becoming communist in the 50s, there was in many European countries in the early 20th C.

Just because the Cold War American right was paranoid, doesn't mean you had to be paranoid to fear communism in pre-war Europe.

There were other things going on in Europe which might also explain the differences of which you speak. For one, the devastation of WW1 happened mostly on their continent, so that would be a key difference in the disorder. Plus, many borders were redrawn and brand new nations sprung up overnight.

But that didn't mean that the U.S. was perfectly safe and sound; we had internal threats, too, including both fascism and communism.

J. Edgar Hoover made a speech before Congress in 1947 and said this: "The size of the party is relatively unimportant because of the enthusiasm and iron-clad discipline under which they operate. In this connection, it might be of interest to observe that in 1917 when communists overthrew the Russian government there was one communist for every 2,277 persons in Russia. In the United States today there is one communist for every 1,814 persons in this country." (Hoover, "Speech before the House Committee...," Speech Text - Voices of Democracy)

This would imply a belief that communism was a greater threat to America in 1947 than it was in Russia in 1917.

Ironically, this would also be used by racists and segregationists who associated the Civil Rights Movement with perceived communist infiltrators. The KKK would attempt to justify themselves by saying things like "we have nothing against black people, it's the communists we oppose." Considering the size of the marches during the Civil Rights Movement, along with equally large anti-war protests (who were also associated with communists and considered dupes), one could create the perception that communism might have been a mortal threat to America.

It’s not about a country but an ideology that had a good deal of support across Europe.

Germans didn't have to fear a Soviet invasion, they could genuinely be worried about a Communist takeover from within.

Both the Communists and the fascists were working to destroy liberal democracy. One succeeded in gaining power.

People had good reason to be concerned about living in a communist country, as they did about living in a fascist one too. It may not have been probable, but it was certainly realistically possible given the wrong turn of events hence fascists and communists did take over multiple countries and had significant movements in many others.

So, they didn't fear the Red Army, but they feared their own people becoming dupes and supporting communist movements within their country? I agree with that to a point, as there was pronounced political instability in the 1920s and 30s in Europe. The rise of communist revolutionary activity did send ripples of fear to the upper classes, who felt they needed a strongman in charge to keep the working classes in line and crush the communist agitators. That's where the support for fascism came from in Italy, as well as in Germany.

As far as being worried about any kind of takeover from within, that's a tricky point. Governments and others in high places often like to speak of internal threats as if some unexplained "boogieman" has arisen in their midst and they don't know why or how it happened. I never considered that line of thinking to be rational. It betrays a lack of understanding of cause and effect.

That's the primary reason they get overthrown and taken over from within.

I'm not really talking about national threats, but what would be reasonable for an individual to be concerned about in those very uncertain times.

From the perspective of an individual in 1930s Germany why would they not make sense?

There were no communists who could gain power? No important communists had stated their intention ti eradicate religion? The league of militant godless and godless 5 year plans didn't exist?

Well, again, I just don't see that religion was at the forefront or leading the fight against communism. It was the nationalists and fascists, like Hitler and Mussolini, who may have tolerated religion, but weren't exactly devout believers. The religious leadership might have made deals with them for reasons of political expediency, but they weren't exactly buddy-buddy in their shared fight against communism.

The U.S. was different in that regard in that the trappings of European nationalism never really took hold here, though it was the religious fundamentalists who were the most stalwart and zealous in their fear of communism and stoking up red scare fever among the masses.

 

[Augustus]

The question is, where is that happy medium? Where is the point on the continuum where a reasonable restriction on a right suddenly turns into oppression and authoritarianism? Is there any standard or mathematical formula we can apply to resolve this question? Or is it just a matter of "rules for thee but not for me"?

For me, it's quite easy to say where a happy medium is not: having millions of secret police and informers monitoring private conversations in the workplace, street, sports club, bar, hotel and even home for any sign of wrongthink then perhaps torturing, killing or sending the thought criminal to the gulag.

You can’t remotely draw a parallel between imperfect, and occasionally flawed, freedom of speech in the west with communists getting kids to spy on their parents for wrongthink.

This was a key distinction between mere authoritarianism of the kind that has always existed and totalitarianism.

Why does no one feel the need to defend the indefensible with the Nazis but many do with totalitarian communism simply because they talked a good game?

As far as being worried about any kind of takeover from within, that's a tricky point. Governments and others in high places often like to speak of internal threats as if some unexplained "boogieman" has arisen in their midst and they don't know why or how it happened. I never considered that line of thinking to be rational. It betrays a lack of understanding of cause and effect.

I’m not talking about unexplained boogeymen but actual political movements that one could see on a daily basis.

I'm not sure people thought they appeared out of nowhere either. People like Bismark had been adopting welfare policies to weaken the threat of communism in the 19th C.

Fascism and communism were progressive movements looking to the future and creating a brave new world. They rejected the status quo for reasons that were pretty clear and they had support across all classes.

Well, again, I just don't see that religion was at the forefront or leading the fight against communism. It was the nationalists and fascists, like Hitler and Mussolini, who may have tolerated religion, but weren't exactly devout believers. The religious leadership might have made deals with them for reasons of political expediency, but they weren't exactly buddy-buddy in their shared fight against communism.

The U.S. was different in that regard in that the trappings of European nationalism never really took hold here, though it was the religious fundamentalists who were the most stalwart and zealous in their fear of communism and stoking up red scare fever among the masses.

Whether religion was at the forefront of the fight against communism or not is beside the point, the question is whether or not it was perfectly rational for a European Christian to a) consider Communism was a serious threat to their ability to practice their religion freely and b) whether it was a realistic possibility that a communist revolution could happen in the short to medium term.

There were other things going on in Europe which might also explain the differences of which you speak. For one, the devastation of WW1 happened mostly on their continent, so that would be a key difference in the disorder. Plus, many borders were redrawn and brand new nations sprung up overnight.

But that didn't mean that the U.S. was perfectly safe and sound; we had internal threats, too, including both fascism and communism.

It may not have been perfectly safe and sound (nowhere is), but post-war America was both geographically isolated and one of the most successful societies in history, and this makes it fundamentally different from 20s and 30s Europe.

But the original contrast was between contemporary right-wing American narratives and 30s Europe.

Would you say there is a massive difference in the level of Communist threat between these 2 examples?

All of this really proves is that Marx and many Soviet atheists were against religion, which no one is denying. It's also a common tactic to mine quotes which might cast certain groups of people in a negative light. Anti-Muslims might trot out a picture of Muslims carrying a sign that "Islam will rule the world," which some might use as evidence that Muslims are a mortal threat. Is it rational to believe that? You tell me

And it's also a common tactic to pretend accurate and in context quotes are quite mined as a way to dismiss them out of hand without having to offer any actual evidence.

What it proves is that Marxism-Leninsim-Stalinism, the form of Communism that actually existed and is thus the one that matters was necessarily atheistic and necessarily required the eradication of religion, which is why they actively implemented programmes to eradicate religions. It was not a pluralist ideology that can tolerate multiple sources of truth, there was a scientific process of History that must necessarily lead to a communist state. Anything incompatible with this must necessarily be eradicated one way or the other, and the job of the vanguard was to expedite this process. The ideology was anti-religious, they were absolutely explicit about this, and their policies were in accordance with their ideology. No one doubts Hitler's anti-semitism was real because his words matched his actions, yet with Communism people still try to pretend they didn't actually mean what their ideology said they would do and then they actually did in reality.

I'm not discussing some other hypothetical form of communism that could have existed in another time and place, but the historical reality that actually occurred.

The underpinnings of Marxism were dialectical and historical materialism, which was necessarily atheistic (there is a clue in the name). This is very different from saying an individual was personally against religion. Individual Nazis didn't just happen to be anti-Semitic, anti-Semitism was a core part of Nazi ideology and free and a thriving Jewish population could not be part of their idealised state.

Stalin referencing Marx, Engels and Lenin while explaining the very core of Marxist philosophy, might illustrate the difference between quoting and quote mining.

Contrary to idealism, which regards the world as the embodiment of an "absolute idea," a "universal spirit," "consciousness," Marx's philosophical materialism holds that the world is by its very nature material, that the multifold phenomena of the world constitute different forms of matter in motion, that interconnection and interdependence of phenomena as established by the dialectical method, are a law of the development of moving matter, and that the world develops in accordance with the laws of movement of matter and stands in no need of a "universal spirit."

"The materialistic outlook on nature," says Engels, "means no more than simply conceiving nature just as it exists, without any foreign admixture." (Marx and Engels, Vol. XIV, p. 651.)

Speaking of the materialist views of the ancient philosopher Heraclitus, who held that "the world, the all in one, was not created by any god or any man, but was, is and ever will be a living flame, systematically flaring up and systematically dying down"' Lenin comments: "A very good exposition of the rudiments of dialectical materialism." (Lenin, Philosophical Notebooks, p. 318.)

Joseph Stalin - Dialectical and historical materialism.

Let's have some more Lenin too:

The philosophical basis of Marxism, as Marx and Engels repeatedly declared, is dialectical materialism, which has fully taken over the historical traditions of eighteenth-century materialism in France and of Feuerbach (first half of the nineteenth century) in Germany—a materialism which is absolutely atheistic and positively hostile to all religion. Let us recall that the whole of Engels’s Anti-Dühring, which Marx read in manuscript, is an indictment of the materialist and atheist Dühring for not being a consistent materialist and for leaving loopholes for religion and religious philosophy. Let us recall that in his essay on Ludwig Feuerbach, Engels reproaches Feuerbach for combating religion not in order to destroy it, but in order to renovate it, to invent a new, “exalted” religion, and so forth. Religion is the opium of the people—this dictum by Marx is the corner-stone of the whole Marxist outlook on religion.
Lenin - The Attitude of the Workers’ Party to Religion


Bukharin:

In practice, no less than in theory, communism is incompatible with religious faith. The tactic of the Communist Party prescribes for the members of the party definite lines of conduct. The moral code of every religion in like manner prescribes for the faithful some definite line of conduct. For example, the Christian code runs: 'Whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.' In most cases there is an irreconcilable conflict between the principles of communist tactics and the commandments of religion. A communist who rejects the commandments of religion and acts in accordance with the directions of the party, ceases to be one of the faithful. On the other hand, one who, while calling himself a communist, continues to cling to his religious faith, one who in the name of religious commandments infringes the prescriptions of the party, ceases thereby to be a communist.


Of course it was perfectly rational for a believing Christian to fear the spread of this ideology as it explicitly aims at eradicating Christianity. And in pre-war Europe there was a realistic threat that countries could become Communist.

As such painting it as an irrational fear of "godless communists" is like claiming Jews had an irrational fear of "anti-Semitic Nazis".

 

[Stevicus]

Why does no one feel the need to defend the indefensible with the Nazis but many do with totalitarian communism simply because they talked a good game?

Well, for one thing, it's a false comparison, or a false equivalency, to constantly equate the Soviet Union with Nazi Germany. This is something that you and others seem to do a lot, and it's simply not fair, nor is it a logical, good faith argument. They clearly did not have the same government or the same ideology.

It also reveals a double standard where it is common practice for Western ideologues to swallow and uncritically believe every crackpot theory and unevidenced claim when it comes to criticisms of Russia, yet simultaneously dismissing any and all criticisms of the West, however legitimate and well-supported, as some kind of crazy "conspiracy theory." The standards and rules of evidence need to be applied equally here.

Racist, expansionist, capitalist, imperialist Germany had much more in common, ideologically, with the racist, expansionist, capitalist, imperialist West than they ever had with the non-capitalist, non-racist Soviet Union.

I’m not talking about unexplained boogeymen but actual political movements that one could see on a daily basis.

I'm not sure people thought they appeared out of nowhere either. People like Bismark had been adopting welfare policies to weaken the threat of communism in the 19th C.

Fascism and communism were progressive movements looking to the future and creating a brave new world. They rejected the status quo for reasons that were pretty clear and they had support across all classes.

Bismarck did adopt welfare policies mainly to take the winds out of the socialists' ideological sails, though many socialists were not explicitly atheistic.

His motives were to protect capitalism and other monied interests threatened by socialist ideals, not to protect religion, which wasn't under any great threat at that point (though there had been pointed criticism of Christianity by some German philosophers, such as Nietzsche).

Communism was a progressive movement, but I disagree with your contention that fascism was progressive. Fascism was most definitely regressive as it was based in atavistic ideals and rested on national mythologies and past glories. Communism may have wanted a brave new world, but fascists wanted the opposite - a brave old world.

The way I've heard some people talk about topics like this, it seems that the prevailing viewpoint is that they did appear out of nowhere, especially if one uses the "great man" approach to history, as opposed to larger picture of focusing more on social/political movements and the causes and effects of industrialism. The sad irony is that if these doomed governments had been thinking clearly and had their eyes open, they would have seen what they needed to do to thwart these dissident movements which they perceived as coming out of nowhere.

Somehow, they believed (and many still do) that the masses are just mindless sheep who would otherwise be perfectly content to be exploited, abused, and mistreated, if not for these awful, horrible "agitators" who inexplicably came out of nowhere and were getting them all upset and riled up. Bismarck was at least smart enough to understand the concept a little better, which is why he implemented social security and other social programs in Germany. It was similar in France and Britain, where their leaders also saw the wisdom in keeping the working classes content by supporting liberal progressive policies.

If nothing else, at least they demonstrated that it's relatively easy to avoid the rise of radical extremism in one's country, if one really tries and puts an honest effort into it. Too bad nobody can think of such things nowadays.

Whether religion was at the forefront of the fight against communism or not is beside the point, the question is whether or not it was perfectly rational for a European Christian to a) consider Communism was a serious threat to their ability to practice their religion freely and b) whether it was a realistic possibility that a communist revolution could happen in the short to medium term.

Earlier, you described a communist system as "having millions of secret police and informers monitoring private conversations in the workplace, street, sports club, bar, hotel and even home for any sign of wrongthink." If this is what people thought at the time, it seems more reasonable to conclude that their fear of communism was rooted in that, just by itself, not some abstract view that "Gee, I might not be able to freely practice my religion." The former would clearly have more potential of instilling fear into people than the latter.

So, what did they support instead to counter the communist atheist threat? A fascist system "having millions of secret police and informers monitoring private conversations in the workplace, street, sports club, bar, hotel and even home for any sign of wrongthink," but at least they tolerated religion - and that makes all the difference, right?

It may not have been perfectly safe and sound (nowhere is), but post-war America was both geographically isolated and one of the most successful societies in history, and this makes it fundamentally different from 20s and 30s Europe.

But the original contrast was between contemporary right-wing American narratives and 30s Europe.

Would you say there is a massive difference in the level of Communist threat between these 2 examples?

Earlier, you spoke of the threat to Germany as being an internal threat and not a direct military threat from the USSR. If that was the case, then the geographical isolation of the US would be irrelevant here. Internal threats arise from within, and America can and did face internal threats.

In the 1920s and 30s, there were still living generations with active memories of the US Civil War, and Jim Crow and institutional racism were still the predominant views in the culture. Organized labor was making progress, but still struggling in many ways. The Great Depression hit America just as hard, if not harder than its European counterparts, which at least had a modicum of social safety nets in place, whereas America did not.

Labor leaders had to bend over backwards in order to prove that they weren't communists, and at least from the point of view of the US working class, the association of atheism with communism was most definitely a factor in the more parochial and socially conservative working classes to reject communism. Americans were still very zealous about their religious beliefs, whereas Europe by the 1920s and 30s was far more secularized and ambivalent about religion at that point. My Dutch ancestors left Europe because they thought it was "too permissive" and secular for their tastes. They weren't fleeing communists or atheists, though. However, they saw it as a rational choice at the time.

As to your question about whether there's a massive difference in the communist threat between then and now, yes, I agree there is. The USSR doesn't exist anymore, but Russia is still considered a threat, but not because of atheism or a threat to religion. US conservative Christians tend to be more specifically focused on perceived threats to Christianity, not to religion in general. Some might express it in vaguer, more generalized terms like wanting to "protect the American way of life." In that sense, one might say they would have greater cause to feel threatened today than they did back in the 1920s and 30s.

However, I would question whether they felt threatened by the communist ideology as conceived by Marx, or if it was something more nebulous and vague and possibly misidentified as "communism."

Of course it was perfectly rational for a believing Christian to fear the spread of this ideology as it explicitly aims at eradicating Christianity. And in pre-war Europe there was a realistic threat that countries could become Communist.

As such painting it as an irrational fear of "godless communists" is like claiming Jews had an irrational fear of "anti-Semitic Nazis".

Again, I never denied that Marxists-Leninists were against religion. Like many people (including many liberals and progressives), there are those who see religion as a harmful and toxic way of thinking, but by the same token, the freedom to believe whatever we want to believe is a cornerstone of Western liberal philosophy. Just the same, many people ostensibly hold the view that society and the world at large would be far better off if religion didn't exist at all.

But that doesn't mean they want to destroy churches or kill people over their religious beliefs. You're correct to say that such things did happen in the past, and it probably continues today in some parts of the world.

I can neither justify or defend what certain European governments did in the last or previous centuries. The existence of states like the USSR and Nazi Germany can often defy description, and many people to this day are still mystified about how what happened could have happened. I get it, and I've studied that period, too, but as an American, I've been mostly conditioned to see things from an American point of view. It's my inordinate curiosity about wondering what things looked like "from the other side of the hill" that made me look at other things and other factors not commonly addressed.

However, I will point out one key factual distinction between the two situations. At least under the USSR, one had a choice to either go along and cooperate with the regime, or face the consequences. One didn't have that choice in Nazi Germany, as anyone who was not Aryan (or was considered Untermensch) were already condemned the minute they were born. They could not convert or sign a paper or declare their loyalty to save themselves. They were targeted just because of who they were.

 

[Augustus]

Well, for one thing, it's a false comparison, or a false equivalency, to constantly equate the Soviet Union with Nazi Germany. This is something that you and others seem to do a lot, and it's simply not fair, nor is it a logical, good faith argument. They clearly did not have the same government or the same ideology.

The grouping together of different totalitarian, utopian ideologies that emerged in the similar time and place is not a false comparison.

Pretending that it is a bad faith screed is disingenuous, given it is standard aspect of academic scholarship.

Both regimes thought they could create a New Man through the redemptive use of near-unlimited violence, and this is the key marker of difference between violent millenarianism and traditional democracies and autocracies.

It also reveals a double standard where it is common practice for Western ideologues to swallow and uncritically believe every crackpot theory and unevidenced claim when it comes to criticisms of Russia, yet simultaneously dismissing any and all criticisms of the West, however legitimate and well-supported, as some kind of crazy "conspiracy theory." The standards and rules of evidence need to be applied equally here.

Is there anything I said that is a crackpot theory and can’t be supported with scholarly evidence or primary sources.

What do you doubt?

I'm also happy to criticise the west, I just think it was qualitatively better than the USSR or the Nazis

Racist, expansionist, capitalist, imperialist Germany had much more in common, ideologically, with the racist, expansionist, capitalist, imperialist West than they ever had with the non-capitalist, non-racist Soviet Union.

And their violent millenarianism, totalitarian structures, mass oppression, police state, etc had more in common with Nazi totalitarianism than liberal democracies.

Also interesting to note that the good ole USSR was so enlightened they carried out their non-racist version of ethnic cleansing on multiple populations I.e

Deportation of the Crimean Tatars - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Racism, imperialism, expansionism were all at home in the USSR too (see Eastern Europe), and Fascism was state corporatist, not capitalist.

Communism was a progressive movement, but I disagree with your contention that fascism was progressive. Fascism was most definitely regressive as it was based in atavistic ideals and rested on national mythologies and past glories. Communism may have wanted a brave new world, but fascists wanted the opposite - a brave old world.

Fascism was small p progressive (which is not the same as Progressivism). The opposite of small c conservatism, that is preserving traditional values and structures.

One of its major influences was futurism and it sought to radically remake traditional structures of society to create something better.

When Futurism Led to Fascism—and Why It Could Happen Again

The Italian Futurists praised invention, modernity, speed, and disruption. Sound familiar?

www.wired.com

It was certainly a change focused ideology that was self-consciously modern and sought to radically change society

The way I've heard some people talk about topics like this, it seems that the prevailing viewpoint is that they did appear out of nowhere, especially if one uses the "great man" approach to history, as opposed to larger picture of focusing more on social/political movements and the causes and effects of industrialism. The sad irony is that if these doomed governments had been thinking clearly and had their eyes open, they would have seen what they needed to do to thwart these dissident movements which they perceived as coming out of nowhere.

Maybe America is different in his regard, but "the rise of the Nazis" must be one of the most well covered parts of European history, and I've never heard it presented as "Hitler came out of nowhere".

The Russian Revolution is not quite the same in terms of popularity, but pretty well covered and, again, I've never heard anyone make the case it came out of nowhere.

Earlier, you described a communist system as "having millions of secret police and informers monitoring private conversations in the workplace, street, sports club, bar, hotel and even home for any sign of wrongthink." If this is what people thought at the time, it seems more reasonable to conclude that their fear of communism was rooted in that, just by itself, not some abstract view that "Gee, I might not be able to freely practice my religion." The former would clearly have more potential of instilling fear into people than the latter.

For a religious person, the idea that their religion might be violently eradicated is a major concern, for some even more important than their own physical self. Also, they may logically fear that this violent eradication also eradicated believers.

Anyway, even disregarding these, the argument runs along the lines of "you shouldn't worry about being raped if you might get killed", you can be concerned about more than one bad thing happening at a time.

So, what did they support instead to counter the communist atheist threat? A fascist system "having millions of secret police and informers monitoring private conversations in the workplace, street, sports club, bar, hotel and even home for any sign of wrongthink," but at least they tolerated religion - and that makes all the difference, right?

Even if we anachronistically assume people expected fascism to turn out the way we know it did, quite evidently it would make all the difference for some if they thought they faced a choice between one or the other.

Just like the vile anti-Semitism would make Jewish people more likely to favour communism over Nazism.

Faced with a choice between 2 oppressive systems, most people will choose the one that oppresses them least.

As to your question about whether there's a massive difference in the communist threat between then and now, yes, I agree there is. The USSR doesn't exist anymore, but Russia is still considered a threat, but not because of atheism or a threat to religion. US conservative Christians tend to be more specifically focused on perceived threats to Christianity, not to religion in general. Some might express it in vaguer, more generalized terms like wanting to "protect the American way of life." In that sense, one might say they would have greater cause to feel threatened today than they did back in the 1920s and 30s.

However, I would question whether they felt threatened by the communist ideology as conceived by Marx, or if it was something more nebulous and vague and possibly misidentified as "communism."

Which was my point at the beginning.

Those in Europe were responding to a realistic and tangible threat (regardless of propaganda that also existed), whereas modern Americans are responding to a media narrative somewhat detached from reality.

Again, I never denied that Marxists-Leninists were against religion. Like many people (including many liberals and progressives), there are those who see religion as a harmful and toxic way of thinking, but by the same token, the freedom to believe whatever we want to believe is a cornerstone of Western liberal philosophy. Just the same, many people ostensibly hold the view that society and the world at large would be far better off if religion didn't exist at all.

There is a difference between individuals being against religion, and state atheism in a society ideologically committed to eradicating religion, which was a cornerstone of Marxist-Leninist philosophy.

The only disagreement was on how to achieve this. The "liberals" thought it could be done by removing Church funding, punitive taxation that taxed clergy more than they could earn (and imprisonment of those who couldn't pay) and made churches financially unsustainable, banning any religious activity or messaging outside of church walls while funding anti-religious propaganda, forcing children to join anti-religious organisations, allowing schismatic religious groups to proselytise to 'divide and conquer', etc.

The hardliners believed violence and terror would speed up the process.

More "liberal" or more violent approaches gained traction at different times, but the eradication of religion was always something that had to happen one way or the other.

However, I will point out one key factual distinction between the two situations. At least under the USSR, one had a choice to either go along and cooperate with the regime, or face the consequences. One didn't have that choice in Nazi Germany, as anyone who was not Aryan (or was considered Untermensch) were already condemned the minute they were born. They could not convert or sign a paper or declare their loyalty to save themselves. They were targeted just because of who they were.

There is some truth in what you say, but it overstates the case. Kulaks were killed simply because they had been slightly richer peasants who could afford to hire labourers. Many people killed in the purges were killed to create a state of terror, not because of any actual crime.

Not sure the victims of the Holodomor could have saved themselves by just signing a loyalty pledge either.

We can probably say the Nazis were worse overall, but that doesn't change the fact that the USSR was horrendously oppressive and murderous.

 

[Stevicus]

The grouping together of different totalitarian, utopian ideologies that emerged in the similar time and place is not a false comparison.

Pretending that it is a bad faith screed is disingenuous, given it is standard aspect of academic scholarship.

Both regimes thought they could create a New Man through the redemptive use of near-unlimited violence, and this is the key marker of difference between violent millenarianism and traditional democracies and autocracies.

Yes, in the West, some academics might group them together, though traditionally, communists were considered far-left, while fascists/nazis were considered far-right. But they were never the same. At least as far as their stated ideological positions and their written laws.

Is there anything I said that is a crackpot theory and can’t be supported with scholarly evidence or primary sources.

What do you doubt?

I'm also happy to criticise the west, I just think it was qualitatively better than the USSR or the Nazis

No, I wasn't really talking about you, but it's just a general observation I've had whenever certain political topics are brought up.

And yes, of course, the West has been better. I consider that more due to historical circumstances, though because we were better off economically and geopolitically, the West didn't really turn to such totalitarian ideologies. That was never the West's style anyway. But that doesn't mean we're above criticism.

And their violent millenarianism, totalitarian structures, mass oppression, police state, etc had more in common with Nazi totalitarianism than liberal democracies.

Also interesting to note that the good ole USSR was so enlightened they carried out their non-racist version of ethnic cleansing on multiple populations I.e

Deportation of the Crimean Tatars - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Racism, imperialism, expansionism were all at home in the USSR too (see Eastern Europe), and Fascism was state corporatist, not capitalist.

Fascist governments were initially supported by the wealthy capitalist classes precisely because they steered the working classes away from communism and kept them in line.

There were numerous nationalities in the Soviet Union, although officially, they were all considered equal. Unofficially, it didn't actually work out that way, and some of it may have still carried over the ways and means of the old Russian Empire. They didn't really have any liberal traditions to draw upon, which is why Stalin acted more like a Tsar than the head of what was originally intended to be a government of the people.

On a side note, I would also mention that the Kaiser and the Tsar were quite different and headed up different kinds of governments, although both also shared much in common. Their successors, Tsar Iosif and Kaiser Adolph were also quite different from each other and headed up different kinds of governments. Officially, they were "republics" and were nominally "democratic." But, what they were "officially" or "on paper" didn't seem to matter in practice.

It's one of the reasons to try to read between the lines and not accept "official" proclamations from government at face value.

Still, I would interpret the actions of their governments by connecting it to the actions of the previous regimes and the overall national aspirations of both Germany and Russia as they developed in the century prior to the rise of either regime. Russia never considered itself "Eastern" or "Western," and from their standpoint, Germany would be just as Western as Britain or France. Likewise, the Soviet system presented itself as something different and apart from the ideologies and social order of the West (which was still much different in the 1920s and 30s than it is now, which should also be taken into consideration in making these kinds of comparisons).

Germany has had much more in common with the Western states, culturally, religiously, politically, than Russia has had. The main issue with Germany is that they wanted to be just like the other empires, like Britain and France had empires. They wanted to have an empire, too. They had industries but they were resource-poor and needed colonies and secured access to the sea, with a powerful navy to match that of Britain's. All they really wanted to do was what Britain and France had already been doing. Hitler's ideas weren't really all that new or original.

Russia's position was quite different, as they already had a large empire and plenty of resources, but lacked the industries. If they had any expansionist goals, it was more for a specific strategic purpose, not just lebensraum for the sake of lebensraum, as was the case with Germany. Their main objectives for centuries were always to secure an ice-free seaport and to retake Constantinople (present day Istanbul) back under Orthodox control. In the Far East, they also wanted an ice-free seaport, which is where they started to run afoul of Japan, with Britain warily watching, as they also had a presence in the region.

So, geopolitically, the Western powers (mainly Britain, France, and America) were destined to find themselves at odds with Germany and Russia, regardless of whatever ideology they embraced, whether they were democracies or dictatorships, whether they had religion or atheism. Fortunately for the West, Germany and Russia also fought each other, which put the West in a somewhat fortunate position. It's rather convenient how that worked out.

The main difference with the West is that, we had a bit of a head start with our conquest and expansionist phase. Though the West started to liberalize and soften up a bit towards the 20th century, although most of the more significant reforms wouldn't occur until after WW2.

As for secret police, our governments have had certain intelligence agencies and some form of "secret service" in place. It may have been somewhat diffuse in the West, since some security agencies might have been privately employed, leaving official governments "off the hook," so to speak. The FBI, CIA, and NSA have a tarnished track record, especially during the Cold War era.

It should also be noted that, towards the end of WW2, the Nazis wanted to surrender to the Americans, but not the Soviets. In fact, some of them were running for dear life ahead of the Soviet advance to try to get captured by the Americans instead. At the end of the war, Patton even seemed to believe that we had fought the wrong enemy, considering the Soviets to be the worse enemy than the Nazis. A lot of people considered that view misguided, and it got him into a lot of hot water to the point where he was ultimately relieved of his command. But it didn't come out of nowhere, as it did reflect the views of a lot of Americans at the time, which even grew larger during the Cold War.