I recently finished the book Lacuna by Barbara Kingsolver. This semi-historical novel follows the life story of fictional author Harrison Shephard. When we meet our protagonist, he is a 12-year old boy moving from the US to Mexico with his Mexican mother. He works as a cook for artist Frida Kahlo and Diego Rivera and also works in the house of exiled socialist Leon Trotsky who has had to flee Stalinist Russia. He works for the government during World War 2, bringing Kahlo’s art collection to the US for display, and at that time he returns to the US as someone who holds dual citizenship. He publishes several books about the lost Aztec empire and the colonization of Mexico.
As the red scare takes hold of the American psyche, he is forced to testify in front of congress. Words from his novels are taken out of context to imply he is criticizing the United States, not that a character in the book is criticizing a historic Aztec leader. He is branded a communist sympathizer, a traitor, and his life becomes unbearable in the US. Where his books were lauded as popular masterpieces only a few years earlier, he now receives hate mail from people who say they haven’t read his books and wouldn’t read such traitorous trash. Additional suspicion is heaped on him as a homosexual, under the assumption (the lavender scare) that homosexuals were vulnerable to being blackmailed and controlled by the nation’s adversaries. He eventually returns to Mexico where he purposely disappears after a day of swimming. The meaning of the ending is enigmatic; has he committed suicide or did he survive to go on and create a new identity elsewhere? What’s clear is that his identity, through no fault of his own, has been destroyed by McCarthyism.
Kingsolver’s book was published in 2009 when McCarthyism seemed like something from the distant past. But then again, I recall my own parents being convinced that this or that person was a “pinko” or a “commie,” which they saw as the worst slur possible, well, maybe next to being gay. My mother in particular held a lot of these paranoid views about supposed communists. And realistically, watching It’s a Wonderful Life, that Christmas classic, it is basically socialist in terms of its message. Potter is a villainous representation of capitalist greed. George Bailey, who is also not great, hands out money to prevent Potter from taking over the town and exploiting its people. And yet, Jimmy Stewart was not only not in McCarthy’s cross-hairs; he was an informant on other entertainers with potential communist sympathies.
One important thing the book pointed out is that Trotsky was anti-Stalin, and the anti-communist movement was an effort to thwart Stalin. But, Americans didn’t understand communism or Russian politics well enough to distinguish between these two interpretations of government, so baking pastries in Trotsky’s house and affiliating with Mexican socialists like Kahlo and Rivera were seen as damning unpatriotic offenses.
Reading the book it was impossible to avoid the parallels between the McCarthy era and some of Trump’s actions in this second term. There were also some clear parallels to how LDS church leadership approaches dissent. Consider how these different tactics have been used by these groups to govern with fear, scapegoat critics, and suppress civil liberties.
- Scapegoating marginalized groups. McCarthyism blamed communists, labor unions and immigrants for corrupting American values. In the book, Harrison is blamed for moving to Mexico when he did so as a 12 year old under his mother’s care. During the red scare, one’s loyalty was questioned based on race, ethnicity or political beliefs. Likewise, Trump has blamed immigrants, asylum seekers, colleges and political activists for destroying American culture. Citizenship is threatened (often with violent treatment) based on national origin, protest activity or perceived ideology. Democrats are vilified and acts of violence against them result in exoneration, pardons, and celebrity.
- Erosion of civil liberties. The House of UnAmerican Activities Committee (HUAC) hearings violated due process, created blacklists that led to job losses, and ruined reputations of those targeted. Accusations were based on suspicions without evidence. Under Trump, mass deportation programs have used suspicion without evidence, racial profiling, and expedited removal to target dissenters. Activists, journalists and immigrants have been surveilled or penalized based on their political views or associations, not illegal activities.
- Use of Lists and Surveillance. Under McCarthy, the FBI targeted teachers, entertainers, and civil rights leaders. Under Trump, immigrants, lawyers, protestors and academics have been targeted. DOGE employees gained access to various systems’ private-held data on recipients of government programs. New proposals have allowed data sharing between agencies to track, flag, or deny visas to those seen as critical of the Trump administration.
- Weaponizing nationalism and fear. McCarthy stoked American fear of Soviet infiltration. Loyalty to the country meant loyalty to party or ideology. Trump frames loyalty as loyalty to himself alone, not to the constitution, the law or the American dream.
- Chilling effects on free expression. Artists, professors, journalists, and union organizers self-censored to avoid scrutiny. Any dissent against the McCarthy era tactics was considered subversive. Trump has engaged in all of these tactics, even threatening to deport Rosie O’Donnell (who is a multi-generational American citizen) “back” to Ireland because of her criticism of him. Dissent is labelled as “anti-American” or “pro-terrorist.”
- Cult of personality and loyalty oaths. McCarthy demanded loyalty oaths from public servants and academics. He used fear tactics to get compliance with his goals. Trump demanded loyalty in terms of requiring GOP legislators and cabinet members to falsely agree that the 2020 election was stolen; whatever their actual beliefs, they were willing to placate him to avoid losing their positions of power.
- Institutional enablers and resistance. McCarthy was enabled by Congress, media and the FBI until finally the public hearings backfired. A few brave souls stood up to his threats to stop the red scare (Edward R. Murrow and Joseph Welch). Trump’s policies have been backed by some of the courts, including SCOTUS, and Congress has enabled him to proceed unchecked as well.
Since this is ostensibly a Mormon blog, consider the ways these same tactics have sometimes been used to enforce the authority of church leaders, many of whom shared McCarthy’s anti-communist fervor:
- Loyalty tests: Temple interviews require a regular attestation of belief and practice. The rhetoric stating to “follow the prophet” also reinforces a primacy on loyalty to the leaders. When Chad Hardy created the “Men on a Mission” beefcake calendar featuring shirtless images of Mormon missionaries, his leaders asked if he would stop if Pres. Monson personally asked him to do so. This is an example of a loyalty test, putting one’s personal loyalty to a human leader at the crux of one’s church membership.
- Surveillance. Worthiness interviews and family pressure create a network of surveillance on the membership. Additionally, when members dislike social media posts (often due to political disagreement), tattling to a bishop usually gets the tattler’s desired result rather than a more appropriate reminder to mind their own business like adults. While this could be because bishops lack leadership skills, it’s more likely that bishops have learned from observing leaders above them in the hierarchy. If the church didn’t feel entitled to know people’s private thoughts and beliefs, they wouldn’t ask them in worthiness interviews. I was surprised a few years ago when I read in a Reddit forum that parents who were still active were supporting their inactive adult children by not providing a forwarding address to the church. This allowed their children privacy and not being hounded by their local ward, and also didn’t force the children to feel they needed to officially resign.
- Dissent control. Members who express dissent risk excommunication at one extreme, or social ostracization at least. As a result, many members who hold dissenting views keep silent, which is desirable to church leaders who don’t want criticism or discussion of thorny issues that would weaken their control.
- Historical control. Rather than telling accurate history, the church has mostly created faithful retellings that suppress the messiness of history, the complexity of the humans involved, and the mistakes of leaders.
- Identity policing. Congregations are vigilant for any deviation from church standards among fellow ward members. Church standards provide many easily seen markers of compliance: faithfulness of one’s children, clothing choices, coffee and alcohol prohibitions, temple and church attendance, one’s calling, visibility of giving prayers and talks, etc.
Many other churches contain similar tactics to enforce ideological consistency among their members. This can lead to perfectionism, scrupulosity, shame, or fear of exclusion for those in high demand fundamentalist religions. Catholics, by contrast, often experience guilt as a spiritual identity. Mainline protestants are less likely to suffer these side effects as they are less structured and controlling.
- Have you ever thought of church culture being similar to McCarthyism?
- Do you see these parallels to the Trump administration?
- How do you think the Church could avoid the pitfalls of authoritarian tactics to be more welcoming to a larger group of believers? What would have to change for that to happen?
Discuss.
Wheat & Tares 
I’ve been reading about Trump administration directives to National Park Service employees to identify signage that reflects anything other than a positive, uplifting approach to US history. This impacts, in particular, treatment of African slavery and Native Americans, as well as the effects of climate change, among other topics as well. Promotion of such so- called faithful history (or is it faith-filled?) sanitizes and controls the historical narrative for typically dangerous and racist reasons. Controlling the narrative controls history and ultimately identity and purpose.
I’m not sure where others that frequent this blog live. Sometimes, I read the subject and the comments and just thank my lucky stars that I live on the east coast! Other than an occasional one off of a local leader exercising a little “unrighteous dominion”. I’ve rarely experienced the problems expressed. And when it has happened the members around here speak up. As far as Trumpism in the local church in any form, NOPE. Anyone that as much a spoke the word Trump in a church setting would be spoken to by fellow members and likely leadership. I think half our ward, including an 82 year old widow, have been to the No Kings demonstrations. So to those of you suffering through Trumpism, I am so sorry. I’ve never seen the undertones of “It’s a Wonderful Life.” I just like the annual tradition of watching it.
dlcroc58 makes an interesting point. I, too, live in the East, and I see almost no Trumpism, and no McCarthyism, in my ward or stake. I don’t feel like fellow church members are surveilling me or each other. Many ward members are clearly politically liberal. Maybe what people here frequently attribute to Mormons really applies to Intermountain White culture, of which UT-ID-NV-AZ Mormons are simply a subset. The so-called Mormon issues, at least in my ward, seem to apply more to Western transplants than to locals, speaking broadly, of course.
The problem is that the Intermountain White culture is where the head of the church is located and hence church policy to be silent on issues it should be addressing. No blatant Trump support but no visible opposition to cruel unChristian actions.
The problem parallel behaviors I see, instead of McCarthyism, is with Pharisees….rules, conformity, policing, tattling.
I had an interesting conversation with my bishop in our “greater-Boston-area” ward a few years ago. He told me that several members have spoken to him: they are not willing to make strongly conservative statements for fears of being laughed at or disrespected. This was in context of LGBTQIA+ issues. These members didn’t feel free to speak their minds about these issues, even when they were following the basic teachers of various GAs. I have to admit that I had to suppress a bit of a snort. Like I haven’t been self-censoring (as a liberal) for decades.
I am not sure the original intention of adding belief questions to the temple recommend interview in the 1980s was to stifle dissent and free thought, but I think that is the primary effect, and that is one of many reasons I’d like to see those questions removed. In particular, in this era where many are questioning the literal beliefs they previously held in light of new information, I’ve been around a lot of people who start questioning and immediately assume they are no longer eligible to attend the temple. And I think that’s a tragedy. If someone is otherwise participating in their ward and abiding by the recommend requirements, but they are struggling in their faith, I think they should be welcomed into the temple if participation is still meaningful to them. And I think that would eventually result in a cultural shift away from unquestioning obedience to human authority in the church.
dlcroc58: Yes, growing up back east I literally had no idea that the church was so conservative. The ward I grew up in was probably close to a 50/50 split, but people did not assume that everyone shared their political views. We had some very vocal, actively involved Democrats (they are still bastions of the local DNC in their town, decades later), and a few blue collar Republican voices as well. My parents were traditional midwestern conservatives (converts to the church) who most certainly voted for Nixon but also later disapproved of Watergate. They mostly kept their mouths shut at church, and so did the people who disagreed with them. My observation has been that the church can’t afford to be political where it is in such a minority. The ward needs everyone, and it can’t afford to place purity tests on the members. That’s certainly not true in UT, CA, AZ or ID where members do tend to assume (rightly, apparently) that their conservatism is the lens through which the gospel should be interpreted, that they are in sync with the leaders and that those who vote differently are morally lax. Additionally, tattlers tend to lean conservative because they value structured leadership and purity more than liberals who value dissent (there’s a reason they used to call them “damn, dirty hippies”).
Amen to Linda: pharisaism is the great danger in the church today, and interestingly it seemed to be the fault that Jesus called out the most often during his mortal ministry: the judgment and criticism of others (fellow Jews) who weren’t good enough. Jesus taught not to worry about the mote in a neighbor’s eye when one has a beam in his own, and he taught that the sincere prayer of a sinner is better than the vainglorious prayer of a hypocrite. A problem with curing pharisaism is that those afflicted by it cannot see it in themselves, like cigarette smokers cannot smell cigarette smoke on their clothes.
I give one example. I know a good person who checks all the right boxes. She believes in service, and she posts all about her service on FB and elsewhere. But she doesn’t simply share her blessings from serving, which would be fine. She puts a guilt trip on those who do not serve with her. She cannot stop adding that it would have been done better, faster, and easier if more people had come out. She is oblivious: she is a good person, but she puts guilt on everyone around her because she is so bubbly and active and hyper and lets’-go and do-what-I’m-doing! She has a heart of gold, but she leaves guilt on almost everyone. Is this an aspect of Pharisaism? Is it worrying about what a neighbor isn’t doing right?
I ran into the McCarthyism kind of wanting others punished and tattling to the bishop back east, or other areas out of the Jello belt. As a military wife, I mover around a lot. Only it wasn’t over conservative politics. It was always about some kind of policing of women’s bodies about garments in Florida heat, or sandals to church, or “modesty” in teen girls. And if I add the nastiest, in an English speaking ward in Germany, over artificial insemination by mixing her husband’s sperm with a non husband donor. Well, the baby wasn’t the husbands and so it was adultery. (The bishop ruled it as not adultery, but her husband who gave permission divorced her because I guess he was an a**hat.) It was never over politics, or opinions, but Pharisee policing of women’s bodies. There may have been equal Pharisee behavior toward men, but I never saw any. Some of this was tattle tale to the bishop, some was stupid rules about T-shirts and shorts over the one piece swim suit at camp, some was gossip and outrage behind the scenes. Some was jealousy because*she* wasn’t following the rules and why do I. Some of it was dirty old men drooling over teen girls they couldn’t have. But it always tried to shame the victim into compliance.
Communist ideology did gain a foothold in American government and it came to dominate upper education. Observe that DEI ideology is rooted in Marxism – the focus on class and group identity and empowering authority to judge equity between the classes.
The “Red Scare” was based on valid concerns but the methods used by McCarthy and associates were morally repugnant. Thus we have the consequence that both McCarthy and the “Red Scare” are dismissed as fraudulent. I value the perspective Ronald Reagan had about the problem. In 1947 Reagan testified to the House Un-American Activities Committee and recognized Communist efforts to influence Hollywood. Reagan then rejected McCarthyism saying:
“In opposing those people, the best thing to do is make democracy work. In the Screen Actors Guild, we make it work by ensuring everyone a vote and by keeping everyone informed. I believe that, as Thomas Jefferson put it, if all the American people know all of the facts they will never make a mistake. Whether the Party should be outlawed, that is a matter for the government to decide. As a citizen, I would hesitate to see any political party outlawed on the basis of its political ideology. We have spent 170 years in this country on the basis that democracy is strong enough to stand up and fight against the inroads of any ideology.”
And that is how disagreement of ideas and ideology should be handled. Not with dishonest and coercive tactics that target and “cancel” people. But by having an open exchange of ideas and a fully informed and educated citizenry. And then allowing people to choose for themselves what they want to believe and who they they want to support.
A Disciple, Not sure what you’re really arguing here. I mean, your comments seems mostly like conservative hand waving to argue against the left. Communism and Socialism, however, are also based on valid concerns after all. So is DEI. I mean, you’re saying something (traditional conservative talking points and dog whistles), but also not saying anything? We can agree on the need for an educated population, though I’m not sure we’d agree on even the implementation of that, based on what you’ve written over the years. So, it’s actually more complicated than a Reagan soundbite.
A Disciple: I would recommend Kingsolver’s novel mentioned in the OP to add to your reading list. I think you might enjoy it from a history perspective, and it’s well written. It puts the Red Scare into context. Having said that, the word “Marxist” is a specific boogeyman of the right. It doesn’t strike fear into the hearts of most of the people I know on the left nor to most who have a college degree. I literally learned Marxist literary criticism at BYU! It’s an academic discussion that is valid and worth having, but that doesn’t mean that I’m going to overthrow the government (as some tried to on January 6th, for example) or that I want to abolish currency (as some crypto-curious world leaders seem to find appealing). Both capitalism and Marxism have flaws as systems. As I used to like to say about my son “He’s a card carrying socialist, and the card is my American Express Platinum.”
And yet, during the last 10 years, I have seen dozens of posts from ward members freaking out about these specific terms they do not understand: Marxism, communism, and socialism. One of them screeched that Pete Buttigieg was dangerous because his father taught Marxism in college. That’s similar to the mob mentality described in Kingsolver’s novel, decrying something that one does not understand that is taken completely out of context. If we don’t discuss ideas, then what is college even for? Perhaps it’s for indoctrination, which seems to be Project 2025’s goal, and is also part of BYU’s goal as well (hence the required religion classes that couldn’t pass muster anywhere but BYU which is why the credits don’t transfer, even for Bible-related scripture classes).
The problem with McCarthyism doesn’t have all that much to do with capitalism vs. socialism; it’s about open society vs. authoritarianism. If you went to any Soviet satellite state during the McCarthy period, you would have found the same tactics used in support of the opposite ideology. Those governments were just as bad as McCarthy when it came to enforcing orthodoxy and stifling dissent.
Here’s what I would say about so-called cancel culture. I don’t like it, and I also favor the open marketplace of ideas that Reagan was advocating. I also don’t think it’s only a liberal phenomenon: how many conservative talk radio hosts who opposed Trump still have jobs? I think it’s important to recognize the difference between public and private sector cancellation. Private sector entities can cancel anyone they want and bear the consequences in the market (including the top-rated late night network TV show, apparently). Public sector entities are restricted by the constitution from doing that, which makes it particularly troubling that the Trump administration appears to be trying to cancel entire universities and law firms.
Hawkgrrrl,
My point is the “Red Scare” was motivated by valid concerns. These concerns were exaggerated and especially misapplied to innocent people. But Soviet espionage and the threat Americans would justify subversive actions against their country out of commitment to Communist / Marxist ideology was real.
My observation that Marxism was a growing influence in America is simply fact.
Now why is saying “Marx” a Bogeyman? Conservatives are all too proud to name drop their intellectual icons: Hayek, Friedman, Sowell, Ayn Rand, John Locke, Burke, Jefferson, Adam Smith etc. To whom do Modern Liberals credit for their philosophies? Why the reluctance to give credit where credit is due?
It is indisputable that the arguments made by Marx are incorporated in the philosophies and policies of Modern Liberalism. This does not mean “Critical Race Theory” and “DEI” are sourced to Marx. But there is common ground in the philosophies – the main one being the division of people into classes followed by the demand for authority to make the divisions equal.
One of life’s interesting ironies is the Liberalism of the mid 20th century elevated anti-Communist George Orwell, such that Orwell became required reading in American high schools. Well now in the 21st century the Modern Left does not have much care for Orwell and it is Conservatives who are more likely to quote Orwell! Of course it is fair to criticize Conservatives for cherry-picking Orwell, and it is true Orwell was a Socialist. But Orwell was also anti-Totalitarian and he was critical of authority and the misuse of power. I think the USA could use more Orwell but since neither establishment Republicans or Democrats care for criticism, they combine to keep Orwell on the fringe.
Ezra T Benson got sucked in so much by the McCarthyism and communist conspiracies. Pulled the church very right. The phrase “In God We Trust” was adopted as the national motto as propaganda against the “atheist Soviets”. It’s my current opinion that the right is completely driven by every wind of propaganda even though they vehemenently disagree with that. They are the easiest to point to causes because they are the group that generally delegates their choices and beliefs to authority figures. Phrases like “DEI ideology is rooted in Marxism” is a perfect example of decerebrate propaganda aimed at illiciting tribal emotional responses and group-think invective over thoughtful engagement. It is an oversimplification and misleading to say the least. What is an example of thoughtful engagement? I thought the recent Joe Rogan conversation with James Talarico is a perfect example of that. It highlights the real-life consequences of America systemic failures in real people’s lives–something that DEI is aimed at trying to address.
A Disciple, what does ‘valid concerns’ even mean? How do you feel about Critical Race Theory and DEI efforts also being motivated by valid concerns. How do you feel about Facism being a growing threat in America. “It’s a fact,” and its rise is due to the rise of the tea party, libertarianism, and Trumpism. I mean, you’re not even trying to understand here. Hand waving and dog whistles.
Your response to Hawkgrrl demonstrates her point exactly: you tend to paint Marxism as a monolithic philosophy that is always evil (a boogeyman), without any acknowledgment of it’s valid concerns. You also attribute philosophies not originating with Marx to Marx. He’s your catch all. A Boogeyman. That you can’t see that is EXACTLY the point. Liberals can’t claim Marx in any meaningful way without the nuance because it is nuances and also because the right has made Marixst ideas into a boogeyman; cue any politician on the right who complains about Marxist leftists ad museum. They exist alright, but man, those politicians (or you) applying it to anything and anyone they dislike is trite, stupid, oversimplified, and proves the point that the term is a boogeyman.
There has been several “Red Scares” in history. Guess what they all have in common: people oppressed by the worst of capitalist selfishness, greed, and exploitation, joining together (sometimes with allies) to fight for their rights.
Brian,
The valid “Red Scare” concern immediately following WWII was the recognition of the expanding Soviet Empire and the reality that Americans were being recruited to spy for the Soviet Union, with Communism being the declared ideology of the Soviet Union as well as the ideology Americans were being recruited to support.
All I’ve said about Marx and Marxism is that in the 20th century his ideas became more widely accepted in the USA. This contributed to the “Red Scare” due to the association of Marx with Communism and the inherent conflict between Communism and Capitalism.
That Marxism gained a footing in American academia is recognized fact. In 1989, the New York Times published an article headlined: “EDUCATION; The Mainstreaming of Marxism in U.S. Colleges”
And Google AI responds to the question: “Did Marxist theory gain popularity at American universities” with the answer:
“Yes, Marxist theory did gain significant traction at American universities, particularly in the latter half of the 20th century. While initially seen as an outsider, subversive ideology, it gradually became more integrated into academic departments, especially in fields like sociology and literature. This mainstreaming occurred alongside a broader shift in academia towards critical theory and social justice movements.”
I find the caginess of modern Liberals to the “Marx” label to be fascinating. Clearly the academies borrowed from Marx in the development of their “critical theories” of society. But any time Conservatives point this out the political Left claims it is a “bogeyman” and a “dog whistle”. Yet facts are facts as Google AI must know, as it states: “Critical theory builds on Marx’s analysis of capitalism and his theories of class struggle, alienation, and historical materialism.”
Quentin: I agree about cancel culture. There’s a lot of talking past each other without acknowledging the basic problem of purity testing. There ARE social consequences for the things we say and do, our pasts, things we like on social media, etc. and those consequences are an inevitable byproduct of being a human being in any community. I read and blogged about Jon Ronson’s book So You’ve Been Publicly Shamed, a book about individuals who were “cancelled” for their social media posts or scandalous behavior. The ones who weathered it best were the ones who refused to admit wrongdoing, who steered into the controversy, who were utterly shameless. The only thing we can’t stand is people who are earnest making a mistake that gets blown up then admitting it and apologizing. They are the ones who bear the consequences.
The irony of that story I shared (https://wheatandtares.org/2022/04/05/parental-control-in-education/) is that my kids’ high school principal got fired over allowing that book to be on the summer reading list for AP English students. Outraged parents mischaracterized the book as being about “Nazi sex parties” and “bestiality.” There were stories in the book that included an allegation of a British politician engaging in Nazi sex parties (he hastened to clarify that the sex workers wore German uniforms, but *not* Nazi German uniforms), and the author also attended a strange meeting of people, more than one of whom admitted to having sex with housecats. Was that what the book was about? Not directly. Also, my daughter who had read the book in high school literally did not remember either of those stories from the book, that’s how insignificant they were to the text.
A Disciple: Saying that Marxism is a boogeyman doesn’t mean that I’m saying Marxism should not be discussed or that there are no valid ideas to it. On the contrary, all I’m saying is that for many on the right they think it’s a conversation-stopper, a way to put the left in its “place,” when they literally don’t understand the ideas being discussed. This is particularly interesting in the evolving populist GOP. The coalitions are changing quickly to where the left is now where the elites are gravitating (aside from the billionaires and grifters who know where their bread is buttered and hate regulation to protect consumers from their industries). The MAGA faithful only know “Marxism” as a word meaning some person of color will take money from them. What they don’t see is that the calls are coming from inside the GOP. The people picking their pockets are the authoritarians they are voting for.
And count me in as an Orwell fan. You would also be astonished at my very extensive collection of Ayn Rand’s books. The problem with Rand is that she’s kind of crazy, and her books aren’t well written. Her ideas are a valid critique of a strawman version of what she calls “collectivism” that she saw in Russia, the attitude that the stupid masses are lazy and want to live off the brainpower of the geniuses while enslaving them. OK, fine, I guess, but looking at real life, that’s not really what I’m seeing happen. Also, her rape fantasies and affair with Nathaniel Brandon are downright disturbing and point to a severely emotionally traumatized individual with a skewed world perspective. She also fails to address the issues of people in the population who can’t achieve her extraordinary genius status: the disabled, the elderly, those barred from opportunity through discrimination or violence, and children. Even as a teen my first thought after I read her treatise on capitalism was “OK, but what about the mentally disabled who are born among us. Are we supposed to just kill them? What about their caregivers?” You could certainly see a very short distance from her arguments to the “useless eaters” policies Hitler put in place and the eugenics that were also popular at the time.
A Disciple, I think what I’m not seeing in your comments is what specifically you object to in Marxist ideas. I understand you think Marxism is harmful. I understand that you think its presence in DEI efforts is reason to reject DEI. At least, I think I understand that is what you are saying. But I don’t know why you think those things.
For the last time, A Disciple, as many have pointed out, the ‘caginess’ of liberals to the Marxist label is because the right doesn’t understand the multifaceted nature of Marxist theories and instead only uses it as a boogeyman. Not difficult. No one here is arguing that a varaiety of Marxist ideas haven’t to some degree or another influenced the left. No argument here. Again, not difficult. People on the righ being able to respond to issues or discussion when it comes to Marx beyond Soviet spies as a threat or vague dog whistles from the right? Very difficult it seems. It’s not the left that is triggered by Marx, it’s the right that is. They completely fall apart, can’t respond to reason, or even engage with the complexity and relevance of Marxist theories. He’s their boogeyman. Care to address any other valid and releveant concerns in the OP, the comments? Or just more dog whistles? Beacuse that isn’t going to get you very far. Marx sure seems to have your goat.
McCarthyism, while it went too far, was not a response simply to Marxist ideas. It was a response to facts: a socialist government in Russia, praising Marx, sent millions upon millions to their deaths. Stalin called himself a Marxist, and I think that McCarthyism was more a response to Stalinist deeds, which were built upon Marxist ideals. I think that we err when we say that McCarthyism was a response to Marxist literary studies in our universities. It was a response to millions of deaths. Mao (Marxist) was responsible for some 70 million, Stalin (Marxist) for some 20 million, and Hitler (National Socialist) for some 11 million (these numbers exclude war dead: these are those killed by the governments). Pol Pot and his millions came later. An argument can be made that Nazism (National Socialism) and communism (or socialism) are two sides of the same coin: control of resources (including people) to do the will of the state. I agree that McCarthyism went too far in our country, and I don’t argue that it was a shameful period in our history, but we should not think that McCarthyism was a response to Marxist ideas. It was a response to Marxist deeds.
See, told you.
Georgis: I think the real lesson (and I imagine you would agree) is that authoritarianism is the real threat, not the supposed ideal it hides behind. Orwell would certainly agree. Fighting authoritarianism (Stalinism) with authoritarianism (McCarthy) is the problem, not the underlying ideology.
I agree, Hawkgrrrl, that authoritarianism is the enemy, but I do not see Stalinism and McCarthyism is equivalent or near peer versions of authoritarianism. Stalinism was far worse in what it did. Two wrongs don’t make a right, but these two wrongs, while both wrong, are hardly in the same class. We must remember that most American communists in the 1940s and 1950s were committed Stalinists. They did not only followed Marx, but they supported and praised Stalin, and by extension they supported his murders. To my knowledge, American communists of the 40s and 50s did not denounce Stalin’s acts, but I could be mistaken. Maybe they hated Stalin and everything he did, and said so publicly and convincingly. I am glad that McCarthyism was challenged in America, and that the challenge succeeded. I respectfully disagree with what Quentin wrote above: “If you went to any Soviet satellite state during the McCarthy period, you would have found the same tactics used in support of the opposite ideology.” No, we did not do use the same tactics as the Soviets and their satellites. We did not mass murder, nor send to gulags, and kill, kill, kill. An American communist might have lost his livelihood, but that is far from torture and death.
Anyone who conflates “liberal” with “Marxist” has not read nor understood Marx. Of course MAGA is poised to make Ghislaine Maxwell, a convicted child sex trafficker, a misunderstood martyr,. She has probably received proffer protection and at her next appearance she will state how she has found “Jaysus” so I can’t expect any PEDOn tRump voter to have slogged through “Capital.”
PWS,
Orwell offers the most succinct criticism of Marx with the line “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”
Political systems that promise to create equality between groups and classes invariably must resort to coercion and lies and ultimately violence. For no matter the equality of opportunity, there will be a diversity of outcomes.
The US fortunately is sufficiently free that violence is not available to coerce compliance with “equity” objectives. But such programs do punish individuals by denying opportunity to those who are of the wrong sex, race or religion. And “DEI” programs hurt everyone by promoting mediocrity in place of excellence – for excellence invites inequality and inequality is unacceptable.
In literal Communist nations the demand for equality has always resulted in violence and poverty. The clearest example is the Marxist program of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge. In the pursuit of complete egalitarianism, mass genocide occurred in just a few short years of the late 1970s with millions being executed and/or dying in famine.
Marxism is the most demonstrably failed ideology in human history. It fails because it denies human nature. The thing that is necessary for society to prosper is the right of individuals to pursue their “happiness”. Adam Smith called this “self-interest” and explained that it was in each person pursuing their self-interest that a society thrives.
Marx is not the first to promote the idealism of the collective. But his promotion of this ideal, coupled with his call for revolution / violence to impose the ideal earns him the credit he deserves.
Marxism as academic theory is still lacking for it presumes elements of human nature that simply are not so. By emphasizing class identity and the collective, Marxist theory fails to respect the importance of individual choice and accountability.
Thomas Sowell, who in his early years considered himself a Marxist, gives the perfect criticism of the ideology:
“The supreme irony of Marxism was that a fundamentally humane and egalitarian creed was so dominated by a bookish perspective that it became blind to facts and deaf to humanity and freedom”.
I finally understand. Everytime a conservative writes ‘Marxist” replace it with ‘Moaist.’ This is why liberals avoid using the word ‘Marxist;’ conservatives don’t care to and/or perhaps don’t know how and/or refuse to make the distinction. Good luck and goodnight.
We could go at it all night, but to link Hitler to Marxism is terribly, terribly sloppy. Again, conservatives want to link atrocities to Marxism that aren’t Marxism. Sort much disinformation. A boogeyman. Can’t have real conversations when the sign posts keep changing. At least Georgis later sort of corrects themselves and starts using the term ‘Stalinist.’ Again. Though, not Hitler. Guess I should be happy for small gains.
Or, we could derail this thread further and start naming all the deaths caused by capitalist countries. Shall we? So many choices. Let’s start with King Leopold. Ugh. So tedious.
And since we are quoting Animal Farm. “The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”
I’m sorry I wasn’t clear. What I was missing was not an explanation for why A Disciple thinks Marxism is wrong, per se. It was more that so many comments seem to be some variant of “this belief system and everything bearing any resemblance to it are wrong.” I don’t find those kind of generic comments helpful in conversations. I know that people think Marxism is wrong. But if I say that specific approaches such as DEI are wrong because they draw ideas from Marxism, I don’t think I’m adding anything useful to a discussion. I think using broad labels in trying to discuss ideas actively diminishes any possibility of having a meaningful conversation. The labels can mask that I’m not thinking clearly about what I’m saying or why I believe something. Additionally, my understanding of what that label means may very well not match your understanding. I’d rather discuss ideas than labels.
I have never found church culture to be similar to McCarthyism.
There are many parallels between the Trump administration and McCarthyism. Given the percentage of American’s who don’t see anything wrong with McCarthyism, this really isn’t a hot take.
I think the church can avoid pitfalls of authoritarianism by holding councils. I can’t believe you made me type that out. But I’ve had plenty of discussions with people in leadership positions who have mentioned how they wanted to go one way but the rest of the council got them to go another.
“McCarthyism, while it went too far, ”
Mistakes were made…
A disciple 25 9.11
You attributea motives and the consequences to people who see the world differently to yourself, and I think miss the mark by a long way.
The people promoting DEI are not marxsists promoting an ideology, they are seeing disadvantage, and seeking to correct that. They are not seeking mediocrity either. They are trying to lift us all up. An example. There were few women on the boards of big companies 20 years ago. You presumably believe they didn’t merit it, and it would harm the company if they were there. There are now women on boards some as a result of DEI, and are your fears realised? “Research shows that gender-diverse boards are linked to higher firm value, profitability, and innovation. For example, one study revealed that Fortune 1000 firms with gender-diverse boards showed significantly greater firm value.26 May 2025”
Poll pot was not motivated by DEI he was trying to “make Cambodia great again” and like trump believed lies about how to do that.
In Australia it was noticed that women were a small minority of members of parliament. The Labor party changed its processes to encourage more women and diverse cultures. In the recent election the Labor party now has 80 seats and 58% of them are women. The opposition conservative party are debating whether to introduce quotas for women, because they have 27% women, and are seen as anti woman. They have 40 seats. The conservative party are arguing that the men are there on merit. Labor proved it a lie.
DEI does not cause mediocrity, it gives minorities the opportunity to excel too.
Criticizing DEI as Marxist is nothing more than crypto-racism. MLK Jr. Was once criticized as a Marxist who would spread leftism into the US. The Civil Rights Movement was criticized as Marxist because it preached equality. A Disciple is in the same vein as the Jim Crow racists of the 1950s and 1960s. There are many quiet parts he can’t say outloud, but we know who he is. Vile trash.
The idea that DEI promotes mediocrity is MAGA stupidity. When my employer had a DEI policy, that meant that we took extra steps to advertise job openings in places that would reach diverse audience. The job opening was advertised in all the typical places like general job announcements and hiring websites. DEI meant we also reached out to advertise in a Hispanic community that specialized in the skills we needed. Also a women’s group for women in our professional area – since it was male dominated, women had formed a networking group.
Once the applications came in, they were reviewed for skills. The interviews were the same for all candidates. The hiring decision was made based on skill and qualifications.
DEI is about making sure previously under-represented populations are finding out about job opportunities. The hiring is done on merit. It’s a way to make sure that all qualified candidates, women and people of color, have a chance to apply for jobs, not just the mediocre white guy whose cousin knows the hiring manager.
A Disciples rage bait is nothing if not consistent. Today I’m simply not interested. I do wonder if he would say these things without internet anonymity.
Geoff-Aus comment is awesome.
Honestly, the very idea that anyone can in one breath defend the appointment and subsequent protection from accountability of the likes of Pete Hegseath, then turn around and decry so-called DEI as if THAT’s where the “bad” candidates are is astonishing in its lack of self-awareness. I’m not specifically saying that any commenter has done this, but there are plenty of people on social media who have.
MAGA thinks DEI is affirmative action. The stupidity: it burns.