Definitive proof the ACLU is socialist to its core.

[PROBASCO]

There is nothing "American" about the American civil liberties union as shown below.
America is a capitalist republic but the scum named their socialist organization so as to gain favor of those who fall victim to it's namesake.

gee, who here loves th ACLU?
maybe it should be renamed to the "socialist civil liberties union?

Founder of the American Civil Liberties Union
Enthusiastic proponent of Communism



Roger Nash Baldwin, founder of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), leftist, anarchist, and Communist, was born in Wellesley, Massachusetts to comfortably situated parents, in 1884. He was educated at Harvard College, where he earned an M.A. degree, and then moved to St. Louis, where he taught Social Work at Washington University.

At the approach of World War I, Baldwin, a pacifist, co-founded the Fellowship of Reconciliation, which opposed the use of warfare in the settlement of international disputes. Among his colleagues in this endeavor were Norman Thomas, perennial Socialist candidate for President; the pacifist/Marxist A. J. Muste; and radical journalist Oswarld Garrison Villard, Editor of The Nation.

As World War I progressed, Baldwin co-founded the American Union Against Militarism (AUAM), again with the aim of promoting a pacifist, internationalist agenda. In 1920 he joined with several of his colleagues in the American Left to establish the ACLU. Baldwin was named the organization's first Executive Director, a position he would hold until 1950.

The ACLU soon became enmeshed in a variety of high-profile causes; the Scopes Trial; the Sacco and Vanzetti case, which has long been a cause celebre of the Left; and the publication of James Joyce's Ulysses.

Baldwin showed much sympathy to the Soviet economic system in his statement in his Harvard classbook, and in the foreword he wrote to Letters from Russian Prisons (1924). He embraced the view that the Russia of his day was "a great laboratory of social experimentation of incalculable value to the development of the world."

In the 1930s Baldwin and the ACLU became linked to the Popular Front movement, which was engendered by Stalin to strengthen the Communist Party by allowing it to make common cause with socialists and other leftist groups. Baldwin himself made two trips to the Soviet Union, and in 1928 published a book entitled Liberty Under the Soviets, which contained effusive praise for the USSR.

In 1934 Baldwin authored a piece titled "Freedom in the USA and the USSR." He wrote: "The class struggle is the central conflict of the world; all others are incidental. When that power of the working class is once achieved, as it has been only in the Soviet Union, I am for maintaining it by any means whatever. Dictatorship is the obvious means in a world of enemies at home and abroad. I dislike it in principle as dangerous to its own objects. But the Soviet Union has already created liberties far greater than exist elsewhere in the world. … [There] I saw ... fresh, vigorous expressions of free living by workers and peasants all over the land. And further, no champion of a socialist society could fail to see that some suppression was necessary to achieve it. It could not all be done by persuasion. … [I]f American champions of civil liberty could all think in terms of economic freedom as the goal of their labors, they too would accept 'workers' democracy' as far superior to what the capitalist world offers to any but a small minority. Yes, and they would accept — regretfully, of course — the necessity of dictatorship while the job of reorganizing society on a socialist basis is being done."

Baldwin retired as Executive Director of the ACLU in 1950 but remained active in the organization. He traveled extensively after his retirement, especially to Asia, where he condemned the regime of Ngo Dinh Diem in South Vietnam, even as he embraced the Communist dictator Ho Chi Minh as a member of the Vietnamese-American Friendship Association. He cultivated the friendship of convicted terrorist Pedro Albizu Campos in Puerto Rico. He also joined SANE (the Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy), which argued for unilateral nuclear disarmament by the United States.

Reflecting on his early years as the ACLU's Executive Director, Baldwin candidly revealed his original motives and objectives: "I am for socialism, disarmament, and ultimately, for abolishing the state itself as an instrument of violence and compulsion. I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the properties class, and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal. It all sums up into one single purpose -- the abolition of dog-eat-dog under which we live. I don't regret being part of the communist tactic. I knew what I was doing. I was not an innocent liberal. I wanted what the communists wanted and I traveled the United Front road to get it."

Baldwin maintained an office in the United Nations after his retirement from the ACLU, working as a consultant for the International League for Human Rights. He died in 1981.

[El Jefe]

Power of the working class...........in the Soviet Union..................hilarious! :losing-it:

[Warthogg]

I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the properties class, and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal. It all sums up into one single purpose -- the abolition of dog-eat-dog under which we live. I don't regret being part of the communist tactic. I knew what I was doing. I was not an innocent liberal. I wanted what the communists wanted and I traveled the United Front road to get it.


Straight forward and without room for wiggles. This view was more common in the 1920's and 30's than we might imagine today.


in 1928 published a book entitled Liberty Under the Soviets



Musta been a short book....hehehehe


Wart

[Gunreference1]

Probasco, if you're going to post information, especially when it's an entire article, please include a reference to the source. In your case I believe the link below is where your information came from.

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1579

Steve

[Kadmos]

You left out his later book

A New slavery: forced labor; the communist betrayal of human rights

And the fact that he worked to purge the ACLU of communists

Socialism and Communism were popular ideas in the early part of the century, many at first found them very appealing. It was only once they saw them in practice did they realize the mistake.

BTW America is not a "capitalist republic", it is of course a republic, but there is nothing legally stating it as "capitalist", we use many different economic theories here, and yes that includes several forms of "capitalism", including "Social market economy" which in fact shares many attributes of socialism, it's probably in fact our most dominant form.

What we actually have is a "Mixed market economy", which can support nearly all economic models including both socialism and communism.

As to our founding fathers, it certainly wasn't Free Market capitalism, they often fostered monopolies, used the states power to stop competition, and of course promoted cooperative means of production as well as a slave based economy.

[El Jefe]

The ACLU is not a force for good. It's aims have always been and still are, commie bullshit. Sure, they've denounced communism at times, when it was highly unpopular. But only a fool would believe they are not a commie front.

[American Rage]

Old News

[ltorlo64]

In 1934 Baldwin authored a piece titled "Freedom in the USA and the USSR." He wrote: "The class struggle is the central conflict of the world; all others are incidental. When that power of the working class is once achieved, as it has been only in the Soviet Union, I am for maintaining it by any means whatever. Dictatorship is the obvious means in a world of enemies at home and abroad. I dislike it in principle as dangerous to its own objects. But the Soviet Union has already created liberties far greater than exist elsewhere in the world. … [There] I saw ... fresh, vigorous expressions of free living by workers and peasants all over the land. And further, no champion of a socialist society could fail to see that some suppression was necessary to achieve it. It could not all be done by persuasion. … [I]f American champions of civil liberty could all think in terms of economic freedom as the goal of their labors, they too would accept 'workers' democracy' as far superior to what the capitalist world offers to any but a small minority. Yes, and they would accept — regretfully, of course — the necessity of dictatorship while the job of reorganizing society on a socialist basis is being done."

This is one of the most illogical and scarry things I have every read. I can't believe someone, especially someone who is "educated" could believe this.

[Kadmos]

This is one of the most illogical and scarry things I have every read. I can't believe someone, especially someone who is "educated" could believe this.

You have the benefit of hindsight and somehow expect Baldwin to have had amazing foresight.

You have to remember to look at the time period. This was written in the early 1930's, free market capitalism had just about completely failed the people in most peoples eyes. The great depression was in full swing.

Alexei Rykov was in power in the USSR, Stalin didn't come in until later, Rykov was a moderate who encouraged capitalism and open markets as a augment to communism. People were essentially guaranteed jobs and food from the state plus could express their own desires to create ways to attain more personal wealth. Essentially it was kind of like the legitimizing the black market to a degree.

While Americans were near starving after watching the destruction of our economy mostly brought on by Wall street business, the USSR was essentially in its (albeit short) first golden age.

Then came Stalin.

But of course Baldwin couldn't see that before the fact, nor could anyone else for that matter.

It's very easy to look back and say "communism is flawed", but it wasn't possible at the time. At the time Russia had gotten rid of it's Czar, voted in new leadership, was creating jobs and building a real modern nation. It didn't look evil, it looked like the next natural step after democracy

[ltorlo64]

You have the benefit of hindsight and somehow expect Baldwin to have had amazing foresight.

You have to remember to look at the time period. This was written in the early 1930's, free market capitalism had just about completely failed the people in most peoples eyes. The great depression was in full swing.

Alexei Rykov was in power in the USSR, Stalin didn't come in until later, Rykov was a moderate who encouraged capitalism and open markets as a augment to communism. People were essentially guaranteed jobs and food from the state plus could express their own desires to create ways to attain more personal wealth. Essentially it was kind of like the legitimizing the black market to a degree.

While Americans were near starving after watching the destruction of our economy mostly brought on by Wall street business, the USSR was essentially in its (albeit short) first golden age.

Then came Stalin.

But of course Baldwin couldn't see that before the fact, nor could anyone else for that matter.

It's very easy to look back and say "communism is flawed", but it wasn't possible at the time. At the time Russia had gotten rid of it's Czar, voted in new leadership, was creating jobs and building a real modern nation. It didn't look evil, it looked like the next natural step after democracy

I don't think I was looking at this with 20/20 hindsight, but I may have. I was really looking at his explanation that liberty was bad. How can slavery ever hope to live up to liberty? That is what I was thinking.

[LAGC]

You have the benefit of hindsight and somehow expect Baldwin to have had amazing foresight.

You have to remember to look at the time period. This was written in the early 1930's, free market capitalism had just about completely failed the people in most peoples eyes. The great depression was in full swing.

Alexei Rykov was in power in the USSR, Stalin didn't come in until later, Rykov was a moderate who encouraged capitalism and open markets as a augment to communism. People were essentially guaranteed jobs and food from the state plus could express their own desires to create ways to attain more personal wealth. Essentially it was kind of like the legitimizing the black market to a degree.

While Americans were near starving after watching the destruction of our economy mostly brought on by Wall street business, the USSR was essentially in its (albeit short) first golden age.

Then came Stalin.

But of course Baldwin couldn't see that before the fact, nor could anyone else for that matter.

It's very easy to look back and say "communism is flawed", but it wasn't possible at the time. At the time Russia had gotten rid of it's Czar, voted in new leadership, was creating jobs and building a real modern nation. It didn't look evil, it looked like the next natural step after democracy

Excellent point. The Soviet Union really had a lot of potential in the 1920's. I can't imagine how different history would have played out if Trotsky had assumed power instead of Stalin. We could have literally seen Communism spread across half the world, instead Stalin set his sights internally and killed the revolution from within, purging most of the originally revolutionaries, turning it into the ultimate counter-revolution: a dead-end state capitalist police state.

[Kadmos]

I don't think I was looking at this with 20/20 hindsight, but I may have. I was really looking at his explanation that liberty was bad. How can slavery ever hope to live up to liberty? That is what I was thinking.

The problem is people didn't think of it as slavery. At that time when people thought communism they thought of "working together, unity, full employment, community, neighborliness". People thought of it as this sort of post industrial Amish society, where everyone worked, and they worked peacefully together in the jobs they were good at.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" was very attractive, it meant you got those things you needed and were going to have a chance to be the most productive member of society that you could become.

People really and truly believed it was going to be great for personal freedoms and personal fulfillment, the end of starvation, the best in medical care, and the pinnacle to improve arts and sciences.

No one was thinking totalitarianism, they thought of it as a democratic (as in democracy, not the Dem. party) movement.

You find a lot of people who early on supported socialism and communism and later completely reversed their opinion after Stalin. It really wasn't until after WWII and the 2nd red scare that people really saw the true dangers of communism. (The 1st red scare was 1919, a short lived event that focused more on worker revolution than on actual communism)

For a lot of people it was this shining new movement that would solve the ages old problems of man, and of course many the most popular, and most educated people were supporting the idea.

It wouldn't have been so dangerous if it hadn't also been so attractive.

[Warthogg]

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" was very attractive....

Back in the day the hippies sneaked the quote into the year book of (I think) University of San Francisco. The college administrators didn't have a clue until the year book was published.


Wart

[Kadmos]

Back in the day the hippies sneaked the quote into the year book of (I think) University of San Francisco. The college administrators didn't have a clue until the year book was published.


Wart

I'm not surprised. It seems in every generation since the idea of communism young folks like to dabble with the idea, especially in a college setting.

Living generally on other peoples money, with a usually uncertain future looming very near, combined with a romanticized idea of what communism "could" be, it probably has its appeal.

When you look back at the formative literature of communism, it appears sensible, intellectual, and very comforting. The state values you, gives you a job, and makes sure you get fed.

Communism replaces your mommy in taking care of you, but allows you to trick yourself into thinking it's something more dignified and intellectual.

For a whole lot more people than really want to admit it, that idea is rather appealing..and probably would honestly be "good enough" in reality for most people.

The problem really is that issue of the small percent (perhaps that 1% ;)...probably in reality that 10-15% ), who just can't live that way, who either need to control, and thus ruin that perfect ideal via totalitarianism, or those who have that spark of innovation or art, those select few who tend to make history, or those that have the actual true desire to be left alone to do their own thing. :)

[ltorlo64]

The problem really is that issue of the small percent (perhaps that 1% ;)...probably in reality that 10-15% ), who just can't live that way, who either need to control, and thus ruin that perfect ideal via totalitarianism, or those who have that spark of innovation or art, those select few who tend to make history, or those that have the actual true desire to be left alone to do their own thing. :)

Don't forget the small percentage, about the same as the top, who will refuse to work, or will lie about working. That leaves somewhere between 60-80% who are just following what ever is going on at the time. That bottom percent group has as much to do with the failure as the top.

[bum_whisperer]

Excellent point. The Soviet Union really had a lot of potential in the 1920's. I can't imagine how different history would have played out if Trotsky had assumed power instead of Stalin. We could have literally seen Communism spread across half the world, instead Stalin set his sights internally and killed the revolution from within, purging most of the originally revolutionaries, turning it into the ultimate counter-revolution: a dead-end state capitalist police state.

Your leader will do the same to ensure that his power is maintained. Once they have their teeth in it, they get rabbid and don't let go. It's hard for a useful idiot to understand this because he believes that there will be salvation for his good deeds.

The ACLU and the Democrat party have been coopted by the progressive Stalinists. You have the propaganda coming out of Hollywood to normalize society with communist rhetoric like the idea of being a fag is a natural thing when, in fact, it's an abomination. The useful idiots are open to all of this because they have no moral compass to guide them due to rejecting spirituality and religion as a whole. Inducing drugs and maintaining a less fruitful way of life breeds ire and then ideals like class warfare become acceptable with the end result of redistribution being a lifetime goal.

You bums will have your day of reckoning and your movement will be pushed back to the stone age. When you fuck with the fruits of other's labor, you face a retribution you cannnot contemplate because you have nothing. You're rallying a base that has a lot to lose and it's not your side. But you guys keep it up, you will get yours in the end. :D

[Kadmos]

Don't forget the small percentage, about the same as the top, who will refuse to work, or will lie about working. That leaves somewhere between 60-80% who are just following what ever is going on at the time. That bottom percent group has as much to do with the failure as the top.

You know, I never thought about that. At least that top percent will still be productive. While any system can soak up unproductive members to some degree, and really needs to be able to, or else finds the need to send the old folks out on an ice floe...I can see where healthy people who could work but don't would actually be even more disruptive to the communist system than most other systems.

[1 Patriot-of-many]

Straight forward and without room for wiggles. This view was more common in the 1920's and 30's than we might imagine today.



Musta been a short book....hehehehe


Wart About as long as it took to pull up to your "apartment" load you in take you for a ride, put you in the cellar and fire the gun, or load you in the train for a free vacation!!!!!!