Anti-communist - history | Check Anti-communist in Wikipedia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia | Disclaimers of Wikipedia | GFDL

---

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (April 2009)

This article may contain original research or unverified claims. Please improve the article by adding references. See the talk page for details. (April 2009)

Anti-communism is political and ideological opposition to communism, especially Marxism. Organized anti-communism developed in reaction to the growing popularity of the communist movement, and took on many forms during the 20th century.

Conservative monarchists in Europe fought against the first wave of communist revolutions from 1917 to 1922. Fascism and Nazism were based on a violent brand of anti-communism; they incited fear of a communist revolution in order to gain political power, and they aimed to destroy communism in World War II. Both conservatism and classical liberalism shaped much of the anti-communist foreign policy of the Western powers, and dominated anti-communist intellectual thought in the second half of the 20th century.

As Marxist communism became largely associated with the Soviet Union in the public imagination, anti-communism and opposition to the Soviet Union became almost indistinguishable, especially in terms of foreign policy. Anti-communism was an important element in the foreign policy of the Axis powers during the 1930s (Anti-Comintern Pact) and the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan, South Korea, Australia, Canada, Israel, and other capitalist countries during the Cold War.

Contents 1 Fascist anti-communism 2 Roman Catholic anti-communism 3 Anarchist and leftist anti-communism 4 Anti-communism in the United States 5 Objections to communist theory 6 Criticism of anti-communism 7 See also 8 References 9 External links

Fascist anti-communism

Fascism and "Soviet" Communism are political systems that arose to prominence after World War I. Historians of the period between World War I and World War II such as E.H. Carr and Eric Hobsbawm point out that liberal democracy was under serious stress in this period and seemed to be a doomed philosophy. The socialist movement worldwide split as the leaders of the social democratic parties supported the war, while supporters of the Russian Revolution of 1917 formed Communist Parties in most industrialized (and many non-industrialized) nations.

At the end of World War I and the Russian revolution, there were attempted socialist uprisings or threats of socialist uprisings throughout Europe, most notably in Germany, where the Spartacist uprising in January 1919 failed. In Bavaria, Communists successfully overthrew the government and established the Bavarian Soviet Republic, that lasted for a few weeks in 1919. Similar short lived Soviet Republics emerged in other German states and a short-lived Soviet government was also established in Hungary under Béla Kun in 1919.

The Russian Revolution also inspired attempted revolutionary movements in Italy with a wave of factory occupations, a strike wave in Britain, the Winnipeg General Strike, the Seattle General Strike and other radical events.

Many historians view fascism as a reaction against to these developments – a movement that both tried to appeal to the working class and divert them from Marxism and also appealed to capitalists as a bulwark against Bolshevism.^{[citation needed]} Italian fascism founded and led by Benito Mussolini took power with the blessing of Italy's king after years of leftist unrest led many conservatives to fear that a communist revolution was inevitable. Throughout Europe, numerous aristocrats and conservative intellectuals as well as capitalists and industrialists lent their support to fascist movements in their countries that arose in emulation of Italian fascism. Meanwhile in Germany, numerous right wing nationalist groups arose, particularly out of the post-war Freikorps, which were used to crush both the Spartacist uprising and the Munich Soviet.

However, there are both communist and anti-communist authors who have disputed the view of fascism as a reaction against socialist revolutionary movements and instead stressed what they believed to be essential similarities between state communism and fascism in both theory and practice. Sometimes this is posited as a critique of totalitarianism. The noted Austrian School economist Friedrich Hayek, author of The Road to Serfdom, argued that various modern totalitarian movements, including fascism and Communism, have common philosophical roots both springing from the opposition to the liberalism of the 19th century. Those arguing from these positions see it as far more than a coincidence that Benito Mussolini himself claimed to be a Marxist and member of the Italian Socialist Party before World War I, while many philosophical founders of fascism, such as Sergio Panunzio and Giovanni Gentile, came from a Marxist or syndicalist background that they later repudiated in their writings. However, these authors concede that the ideologies are divided on the issue of what the foundation for the ideal society should be (communists focus on class struggle for a classless society free of all forms of exploitation and oppression, while fascists focus on national class solidarity through an often corporate state). Additionally, Hayek claims that as late as 1938 Hitler said that Marxism and National Socialism were practically the same thing.^[1] Otto Ruhle, a delegate at the Second Congress of the Third International saw both Bolshevism and Fascism as bulwarks against communism (See Fascism red and Brown).

With the worldwide Great Depression of the 1930s, it seemed that liberalism and the liberal form of capitalism was doomed; communist and fascist movements swelled. These movements were bitterly opposed to each other and fought each other frequently. Notable examples of this conflict include the Austrian Civil War and Spanish Civil War. In the former Social Democrats resisted a fascist coup. In the later the labour movement backed the Republican faced with a fascist coup by Francisco Franco. The Republicans started with an uneasy alliance of Stalinists, anarchists and Trotskyists. However the Stalinist violently repressed their socialist rivals, allowing the war subsequently to be viewed as a proxy war between the fascist countries and their international supporters and the Comintern led by the Soviet Union.

Initially, the Soviet Union supported the idea of a coalition with the western powers against Nazi Germany as well as popular fronts in various countries against domestic fascism. This policy was largely unsuccessful due to the distrust shown by the western powers (especially Britain) towards the Soviet Union. The Munich Agreement between Germany, France and Britain heightened Soviet fears that the western powers were endeavoring to force them to bear the brunt of a war against Nazism. The Soviets changed their policy and negotiated a non-aggression pact with Germany, known as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact in 1939. The Soviets later argued that this was necessary to buy them time to prepare for an expected war with Germany. However, some critics question this claim, pointing out that along with a non-aggression clause, the pact also laid out extensive economic cooperation between the Soviets and Germans, in the form of the German-Soviet Commercial Agreement, providing Nazi Germany some of the materials it needed to build its war machine. This detail is used by the aforementioned critics to argue that Stalin expected the war to be waged solely between Germany and the Western Allies, with the Soviet Union keeping its neutrality while its two greatest enemies fought each other.

Whatever the case, it is clear that Stalin did not expect the Germans to attack until 1942, so he was taken by surprise when Nazi Germany invaded the Soviet Union in June 1941, with Operation Barbarossa. Fascism and Communism reverted to their relationship as lethal enemies - with the war, in the eyes of both sides, becoming one between their respective ideologies.

Roman Catholic anti-communism

The Catholic Church has a history of anti-communism. The most recent Catechism of the Catholic Church states: "The Catholic Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modem times with 'communism' or 'socialism.' … Regulating the economy solely by centralized planning perverts the basis of social bonds … [Still,] reasonable regulation of the marketplace and economic initiatives, in keeping with a just hierarchy of values and a view to the common good, is to be commended."^[2]

Pope John Paul II was a harsh critic of communism,^[3] and other popes shared this view as well, for example Pope Pius IX issued a Papal encyclical, entitled Quanta Cura, in which he called "Communism and Socialism" the most fatal error.^[4] During the Spanish Civil War, the Catholic Church opposed the left-leaning Republican forces due to their ties to communism and atrocities against Catholicism in Spain, and in many churches and schools prayers were made for the victory of Franco and the Nationalists.

Lucia Santos, a visionary of the Marian apparition at Fatima, Portugal was known for her anti-communist beliefs, as well as the message of Fatima in general.

From 1945 onward Australian Labor Party leadership^[5] accepted the assistance of an anti-Communist Roman Catholic movement, led by B.A. Santamaria to oppose communist subversion of Australian Trade Unions (Catholics being an important traditional support base). To oppose communist infiltration of unions Industrial Groups were formed to regain control of them. The groups were active from 1945 to 1954, with the knowledge support of ALP leadership^[6] until after Labor's loss of the 1954 election, when federal leader Dr H.V. Evatt, in the context of his response to the Petrov affair, blamed “subversive” activities of the "Groupers", for the defeat. After bitter public dispute many Groupers (including most members of the NSW and Victorian state executives and most Victorian Labor branches) were expelled from the ALP and formed the Democratic Labor Party (historical). In an attempt to force the ALP reform and remove communist influence, with a view to then rejoining the “purged” ALP, the DLP preferenced (see Australian electoral system) the Liberal Party of Australia, enabling them remain in power for over two decades. Their negative strategy failed, and after the Whitlam Labor Government during the 1970s it, the majority of the DLP decided to wind up the party in 1978, although a small Federal and State party continued based in Victoria (see Democratic Labor Party) with state parties reformed in NSW and Qld in 2008.

Anarchist and leftist anti-communism

Although many anarchists (especially anarchist communists) describe themselves as communists - spelled with a lower case c, all anarchists criticize authoritarian Communism. Anarcho-communists traditionally agree with other Communists that capitalism is a tool for oppression, that it is unjust and that it should be destroyed, one way or another. These anarchists, however, go on to say that all centralized or coercive power (as opposed to just wealth) is ultimately injurious to the individual. Therefore, the concepts of dictatorship of the proletariat, state ownership of the means of production, and other similar tendencies within Marxist thought are anathema to an anarchist, regardless of whether the state in question is democratic. However many other anarchists have a more fundamental critique of communism, often from an individualist or anarcho-capitalist point of view. There are, also, strong anti-anarchist tendencies among Marxists, who have been denounced variously as unscientific, romantic, or bourgeois. e.g. according to the International Communist League (Fourth Internationalist) in a pamphlet entitled Marxism versus Anarchism.^[7]

The debates in the First International between Mikhail Bakunin and Karl Marx are well-known.^[8] While Bakunin's own philosophy owed much to Marx's critique of capitalism, their views diverged sharply over questions of how a post-capitalistic society should be organized. Bakunin saw the Marxist State as simply another form of oppression: "The question arises, if the proletariat is ruling, over whom will it rule? This means there will remain another proletariat which will be subordinated to this new domination, this new state." He loathed the idea of a vanguard party ruling the masses from above, quipping that "when the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called 'the People's Stick.'"

Anarchists initially rejoiced over the 1917 revolution as an example of workers taking power for themselves, and indeed played a part in the revolution (see Russian anarchism). It quickly became evident, however, that the Bolsheviks and the anarchists had very different ideas regarding the kind of society they wanted to build there. Anarchist Emma Goldman, for example, deported from the USA to Russia in 1919, was initially enthusiastic about the revolution, but left sorely disappointed, and began to write her book My Disillusionment in Russia. Perhaps the most prominent and respected Russian anarchist of the era, Peter Kropotkin, proffered trenchant criticism of the emergent Bolshevik bureaucracy in letters to Lenin (who on rare occasions visited his home). He noted in 1920: "[a party dictatorship] is positively harmful for the building of a new socialist system. What is needed is local construction by local forces" and "Russia has already become a Soviet Republic only in name" (referring to the dominance of Bolshevik party committees over the peasants' and workers' soviets).

Anarchists often cite the crushing of the Kronstadt Rebellion, in which the Red Army crushed an embryonic anarchist commune and defeated an uprising of Soviet sailors dissatisfied with the authoritarianism of the new Bolshevik government, as a specific example of the tyranny they perceived in the Bolshevik government. The typhus epidemic, and subsequent crushing of Nestor Makhno's weakened anarcho-communist "Black Army" in the Ukraine was also a specifically controversial action of the early Bolsheviks.

During the Spanish Civil War, a Stalinist Communist Party of Spain gained considerable influence due to the political manipulation of aid from the Soviet Union. Communists and liberals on the Republican side fought mainly against the Falange fascists, but also put some effort against the workers anarcho-communist Spanish Revolution, ostensibly to bolster the anti-Fascist front (the anarchist, anti-stalinist and trotskyist response was, "The revolution and the war are inseparable"). The most dramatic action against the anarchists was in May 1937, when Communist-led police forces attempted to take over a telephone building run by the Confederación Nacional del Trabajo in Barcelona. The telephone workers fought back, setting up barricades and surrounding the Communist "Lenin Barracks." Five days of street fighting in the Barcelona May Days ensued. The enmity between anarchists at communists reached a new high, and remained there.

Bitter feelings between anarchists and Leninists are apparent even today in revolutionary circles. Much conflict and arguing occurs as it did in the 19th century between Marx and Bakunin. Nevertheless, these differences are often put aside, at least for pragmatic purposes, when protesting about certain issues, such as the recent 2003 invasion of Iraq and the anti globalisation movement.

Many left-wing socialist parties tend to distance themselves from the more authoritarian Stalinism and Maoism. George Orwell was a socialist and was also highly critical of what he perceived as the authoritarianism of Soviet regime. Various revolutionary socialists, including some who self-identify as communists (eg. Trotskyists, Titoists), are highly critical of Marxism-Leninism, Maoism and Stalinism.

Anti-communism in the United States

This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (February 2009)

The first major manifestation of anti-communism in the United States occurred in 1919 and 1920, during the First Red Scare, led by Attorney General Alexander Mitchell Palmer.

Following World War II and the rise of the Soviet Union, many of the objections to Communism took on an added urgency because of the stated Communist view that their ideology was universal. The fear of many anti-Communists within the United States was that Communism would triumph throughout the entire world and eventually be a direct threat to the government of the United States. This view led to the domino theory in which a communist takeover in any nation could not be tolerated because it would lead to a chain reaction which would result in a triumph of world communism. There were fears that powerful nations like the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China were using their power to forcibly assimilate other countries into communist rule. The Soviet Union's expansion into Central Europe after World War II was seen as evidence of this. These actions prompted many politicians to adopt a kind of pragmatic anti-Communism, opposing the ideology as a way of limiting the expansion of the Soviet Empire. The US policy of halting further communist expansion came to be known as containment.

The United States government usually argued its anti-communism by citing the human rights record of Communist states, most notably the Soviet Union during the Stalin era, Maoist China, the short-lived Khmer Rouge government in Cambodia led by Pol Pot, and North Korea, because those states ended up killing of millions of their own people and continued to suppress civil liberties of the surviving population.

Anti-communism became significantly muted after the fall of the Soviet Union and Eastern bloc communist regimes in Eastern and Central Europe between 1989 and 1991, and the fear of a worldwide Communist takeover is no longer a serious concern. Remnants of anti-communism remain, however, in United States foreign policy toward Cuba, mainland China, and North Korea under Kim Il-sung and after his death, his eccentric son, Kim Jong-il. In the case of Cuba, the United States continues to maintain economic sanctions against the island in a policy which is sharply criticized outside of the United States, but which has substantial support in the US, particularly from the Cuban-American constituency, including many of the Cuban exiles living in Florida who oppose any such normalization with the Cuban government. Much of the right wing of American politics also opposes trade normalization with Cuba while the Communist Party of Cuba retains its influence.

Due to expanding American trade interests with the People's Republic of China, much of the United States foreign policy establishment does not regard "Communist China" as communist in any meaningful sense. Nevertheless, there is some hostility toward the People's Republic of China, particularly among conservative Congressional Republicans which can be regarded as remnants of anti-communism. For example, national security issues were raised during Chinese state-owned CNOOC Ltd.'s takeover bid for Unocal, an American energy firm. North Korea remains staunchly Stalinist and economically isolationist, and tensions between the country and the US have heightened as the result of reports that it is stockpiling nuclear weapons and the assertion that it is generally willing to sell its nuclear weapons and ballistic missile technology to any group willing to pay a high enough price.

Anti-communist sentiment is still strong in the United States today, even though China is a major trading partner. The strength of this sentiment was demonstrated as late as September 2009, two decades after the end of the Cold War: a Presidential aide named Van Jones was forced to resign from his post as a "Green Jobs Czar" in the Obama White House after rightwing commentators and Republican members of Congress accused him of being a Communist. ^[9]

Objections to communist theory

This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (February 2009)

Most anti-communists reject the concept of historical materialism, which is a central idea in Marxism. Anti-communists reject the Marxist belief that capitalism will be followed by socialism and communism, just as feudalism was followed by capitalism. Anti-communists question the validity of Marx's claim that the state will just wither away into a true communist society.

Many critics see a key error in communist economic theory, which predicts that in capitalist societies, the bourgeoisie will accumulate ever-increasing capital and wealth, while the lower classes become more dependent on the ruling class for survival, selling their labor power for the most minimal of salaries. Anti-communists point to the overall rise in the average standard of living in the industrialized West and claim that both the rich and poor have steadily gotten richer. Anti-communists argue that former Third World countries that have successfully escaped out of poverty in recent decades have done so because of capitalism, most notably the Asian Tigers, India and China. Anti-communists cite numerous examples of Third World Communist regimes that failed to achieve development and economic growth, and in many cases led their peoples into an even worse misery, for example the Mengistu regime in Ethiopia.

Communist parties (sometimes combined with left socialist parties as workers' parties) which have come to power have tended to be rigidly intolerant of political opposition. Most Communist countries have shown no signs of advancing from Marx's socialist stage of economy to an ideal communist stage. Rather, Communist governments have been accused of creating a new ruling class (called by Russians the Nomenklatura), with powers and privileges far greater than those previously enjoyed by the upper classes in the pre-revolutionary regimes.

Anti-communists argue that the repression in the early years of the Bolshevik regime, while not as extreme as that during Stalin's reign, was still severe by any reasonable standards, citing the examples such as Felix Dzerzhinsky's secret police, which eliminated numerous political opponents by extrajudicial executions, and the brutal crushing of the Kronstadt rebellion and Tambov rebellion. According to them, Trotsky could hardly claim any moral high ground, having been one of the top-ranking Bolshevik leaders during these events. Trotsky was later to claim that the Kronstadt rebels were early harbingers of the bureaucratisation which he associated with Stalinism. Some anti-communists refer to both communism and fascism as totalitarianism, seeing similarity between the actions of communist and fascist governments. Robert Conquest, a former Stalinist and British Intelligence officer argued that Communism was responsible for tens of millions of deaths during the 20th century.

The view of human nature usually expounded by anti-communist Objectivists is that while an egalitarian society could be looked at as ideal, it is virtually impossible to achieve. They state that it is human nature to be motivated by personal incentive, and point out that while several communist leaders have claimed to be working for the common good, many or all of them have been corrupt and totalitarian.

Anti-communists argue that the contemporary communist/Marxist claim that any communist regime that perpetuated human rights abuses was not a true communist state is merely a convenient excuse that can be evoked to avoid taking responsibility.

Sociobiologist Edward O. Wilson said "Karl Marx was right, socialism works, it is just that he had the wrong species", meaning that while ants and other social insects appear to live in communist-like societies, they only do so because they are forced to because they lack reproductive independence. Worker ants are sterile, and individual ants cannot reproduce without a queen, so ants are forced to live in centralised societies. Humans possess reproductive independence, so they can give birth to offspring without the need of a "queen". According to Wilson, humans enjoy their maximum level of Darwinian fitness only when they look after themselves and their families, while finding innovative ways to use the societies they live in for their own benefit.^[10]

Criticism of anti-communism

This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (February 2009)

Critics of anti-communism suggest that the Soviet Union was not really communist and had instead degenerated into a bureaucratic thermidorian state, under the control of an elite caste in no way connected to the needs or aspirations of the working class. This is a view first put forward by left communists in the 1920s and Trotskyists since late 1920s and 1930s. Certain writers and historians object to anti-communists' comparisons of communism to fascism under the blanket term totalitarianism, which they believe to be incorrect.

They cite historical evidence, such as the fact that the Soviet Union fought against Adolf Hitler during World War II and say that fascism was the enemy of communism (a view that was shared by Hitler himself, who was one of the most virulent anti-communists of the 1930s), while many anti-communists in occupied Europe took the side of the National Socialists in Nazi Germany. Others, however, placed anti-fascism or national independence above their dislike of communism.

Another objection to anti-communism, which became more widely advanced in the 1970s, was that in pursuit of anti-communism, the United States was conducting a foreign policy in which it supported and installed anti-communist heads of state such as Augusto Pinochet and governments that sometimes egregiously violated human rights, which it saw as lesser evils than communism. Many staunchly anti-communist regimes have been dictatorial and guilty of egregious human rights abuses, oppression, and sometimes genocide. These include Nazi Germany, right-wing military juntas in Latin America such as those in Chile, Panama and Brazil, the apartheid regime in South Africa, the anti-communist regime in Zaire under Mobutu Sese Seko, and anti-communist regimes in the Far East, such as Suharto's Indonesia and Chiang Kai-Shek's Republic of China. Citing governments like these as evidence, communists claim that much western Cold War policy was driven by simple anti-communism and a disregard for problems in nations ruled by anti-communist but undemocratic governments.

Various Western countries are also often accused of racism, oppression and violence, denial of political or labor rights, support for governments which presided over mass killings, torture and detention of political opponents, or engagement with regimes (usually on the basis of their shared anti-communism) which practised genocide or racial segregation, making them no better than the communist governments they were standing in opposition to. In Italy, the use of the strategy of tension in the 1970s has been widely criticized.

Communists argue that while communist governments have had some faults, capitalist ones are worse. Communists cite the hundreds of millions of deaths caused by capitalism,the mass poverty of the third world, world hunger caused by imperialism, and the hundreds of wars over capitalist conflicts, some conflicts only about being able to claim hegemony over the local resources and labor. ^[11] Communists cite democratic and popular support for a variety of Marxist-oriented governments (or at least "anti-anti-Communist" governments) that existed during the Cold War era, such as Allende's Chile. Communists condemn support for oppressive regimes for the sole purpose of eliminating communist influence, and claim that this sort of action is worse than any differences that communist nations may have had with capitalist countries. Some communists assert that a transition from an authoritarian, anti-communist state to a democratic one could only occur with military intervention, civil war, or the death of a leader, as evidenced by the nations in the Axis during World War II, or the death of Francisco Franco in Spain; others believe that it is best accomplished through peaceful means, often citing the Portuguese Carnation Revolution and the defeat of the Kapp Putsch in Weimar Berlin through a general strike.

Communists also point out that in all former socialist countries, conditions were better before its collapse. An example used in this argument is Russia, which has faced a brutal transition to capitalism, maintaining a massive state-run infrastructure and has a 25% poverty rate, and Belarus, under the central, socialist-style planning of Lukashenko, suffered less economic damage. However, formerly Soviet states of the Baltic region, having deregulated their industries and adopted free-market principles, have enjoyed powerful and statistically successful economies.

Communists and communist sympathizers often emphasize the persecution of their political movement by reactionary forces, which has been downplayed by capitalist governments. After the October Revolution in Russia, allied intervention troops tried to crush the revolution. There was also political repression in the name of anti-communism in the United States, most notably in the Red Scare of the 1920s and the McCarthyist era after World War II. Communist political parties and organizations were actively opposed by conservative governments in Eastern Europe after the failed communist revolutions around 1920, in Nazi Germany and German-occupied Europe, in Japan during World War II, in the Republic of China by the Kuomintang (KMT) in the 1920s and 1930s, in post-war Taiwan and South Korea, in Latin America by various right-wing military regimes (Augusto Pinochet in Chile, the Dirty War in Argentina and the civil war in El Salvador.

Communists also reject the notion that the Soviet Union was a communist county. To them "communist country" is a misnomer because they believe that communism can only exist on a world-wide scale after the means of production are in full control of the workers of the world. According to Stalin in a letter to Pokoyev in 1954, the Soviet Union didn't achieve socialism yet. ^[12][13] As further evidence that the Soviet Union wasn't communist, communists cite that the Soviet Union was a nation-state and that communism cannot exist in a nation-state form. Furthermore, due to material conditions, outside influences, and internal problems the Soviet Union degenerated into a deformed workers state, the proletariat was not in power. Lastly, communists say that communism is a post-class society and that the Soviet Union clearly had classes, with elite at the top and workers at the bottom. The power did not rest with the workers.^[14]

See also

This entry is related to, but not included in the Political ideologies series or one of its sub-series. Other related articles can be found at the Politics Portal.

• American Committee for the Liberation of the Peoples of Russia
• Anti-fascism
• Anti-Stalinist left
• Capitalism
• Category:Anti-communists
• Category:Soviet dissidents
• Cold War
• Committee for the Liberation of the Peoples of Russia
• Criticisms of communism
• Criticisms of Communist party rule
• Evil empire
• House Unamerican Activities Committee
• Joseph McCarthy and McCarthyism
• Korean Air Lines Flight 007
• Larry McDonald
• National Alliance of Russian Solidarists
• National Committee for a Free Europe
• Operation Condor
• Operation Gladio
• Radio Free Europe
• Reagan Doctrine
• Robert W. Welch, Jr.
• Rock Against Communism
• Second Red Scare
• Stay-behind
• Strategy of tension
• Truman Doctrine
• Western propaganda
• World Anti-Communist League
• Iron Man#Origins (anti-Communist comic book superhero)

References

External links

• The Sword Of Truth - Anti-Communist News Organization
• Foundation for the Investigation of Communist Crimes.
• Anti-Communist Action
• The Chilean Anti-Communist League
• Anti-Communist social networking website | Anti-Communism 3.0
• Industrial Workers of the World: The IWW Shattered – an excerpt from Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States
• Hirata Tetsuo and John W. Dower, "Japan's Red Purge: Lessons from a Saga of Suppression of Free Speech and Thought"
• The Soviet Story Movie Website

---

2009,09,23

No Products

Powered Amazon Web Service