The problem with this attitude is that it is often the fear of crypto-communists that bring them about. Ultimately, if you play out the consequences this kind of suspicion brings about the harms it seeks to prevent.
We saw just this dynamic happen with racism in US politics recently. People start fearing people are secret racists -- and no doubt a few are -- but to suss them out you start demanding more and more extreme rhetorical denouncements of that view. After all, whoever is least willing to distance themselves from communism/racism is most under suspicion.
The problem is that as the demands get more and more absurd at some point people start refusing to comply and they get evicerated as a racist or communist by one side and pushed into the open arms of the actual racists and communists.
So sure, it is true that conditional on someone having lefty views they are more likely to be a communist and conditional on them having right leaning views they are more likely to be a racist. But it is both good manners and good tactics to presume most people are what they say they are until they show otherwise. Yes, go ahead and accuse them of being inclined to implement X bad policy (including ones with bad racial or communist type effects) but throwing around the identity style accusations (you are secretly one of them) isn't a good idea.
"The problem with this attitude is that it is often the fear of crypto-communists that bring them about."
Uhhhhh ... are you saying that communists did not exist until people feared them? Or are you saying that communists were not dangerous until fear of them forced them underground?
Statists are always dangerous. Collectivists are more dangerous. Wannabe dictators are the most dangerous, especially when combined with graspy collectivists.
I find it far easier to believe Communists' actions made them feared, and they reacted by downplaying their dangerous beliefs; than believing they were harmless until they started hiding their worst beliefs.
"When historians cover the Cold War, they routinely discuss cases where the U.S. supported the overthrow of a democratically elected leader who, in hindsight, definitely wasn’t a Communist. Iran’s Mossadegh, Guatemala’s Árbenz, Chile’s Allende, Congo’s Lumumba, and Indonesia’s Sukarno are the textbook examples."
For Allende and Arbenz, it is not true they "definitely" weren't Communist allies. See Kyle Orton on both:
I do think this needs to consider the difference between there being a state-funded international organizing center (the KGB during the Cold War) and when there isn't (as now).
i wonder if the USA helping to get rid of mosadeh (since you say he could have been a communist) was a good idea. i tend to side with secessionism, countries know what is best for themselves not outsiders. so i am leaning towards it was a bad idea.
I think there are two better reasons why Communism isn't considered nearly as despicable as Fascism/Nazism.
1a. Lenin and Stalin took over a secretive backwards country. They had an alphabet which no one could even try to pronounce, and had a complicated grammar. The country's culture was limited to a few dreary authors, a few composers, and ballet. They still had serfs! And Japan sank their entire Navy and beat their Army in 1905, barely 50 years after being forced to come out of their own self-isolation. Nothing Lenin and Stalin did could be any worse than what the Tsars did, and Duranty's lies in the New York Times proved that Stalin was wise and kind. Never mind that Stalin's secrecy made any contrary reports impossible; who are you going to believe, lying dissidents or the New York Times and their Pulitzer Prize-winning reports?
1b. Whereas Hitler took over a nation which had famous composers, authors, all the culture you could want, who used a real alphabet that could at least be pronounced, who had all the tourism anyone could want, open to the world, a free press, worldwide reports ... and Hitler destroyed them, murdered Jews (Stalin? Never!), extorted Britain into betraying Czechoslovaka, then broke his promise about leaving it alone, invaded Poland, conquered France -- France! -- Denmark, and Norway. A beast, destroying European culture, all with the whole world watching and crying and wailing until kindly Uncle Joe took on the world's enemy, single-handedly.
2. Stalin single-handedly beat the Nazis. Never mind that Stalin started WW II with Hitler, dividing Poland in half. Never mind that Stalin was Hitler's ally for the first two years, and whined like a little baby when Britain, fighting all by itself for those same two years, didn't send enough military aid to Stalin once Hitler stabbed him in the back. Never mind that Stalin could not have won without FDR's Lend Lease (almost all Russia's explosives and aviation gas came from the US, plus 300,000 trucks and a whole lot more). Stalin, Steel Man himself, kindly Uncle Joe, single-handedly beat Hitler!
I can't blame so many suckers in the 1920s and 1930s flocking to Communism and despising Nazism. The news the world got from Germany was a lot closer to the truth than what kindly Uncle Joe let out. And after WW II, after kindly Uncle Joe had stomped the world's arch villain, of course they stayed with Communism. And after kindly Uncle Joe's death, all they had was a shoe-pounding peasant and a bunch of geriatric fossils, until brave Mr Gorbachev started them back to The One True Path, until that actor cowboy Reagan pulled the rug out from under them. He couldn't even make good movies; only drooling rednecks could have voted for him.
The problem with this attitude is that it is often the fear of crypto-communists that bring them about. Ultimately, if you play out the consequences this kind of suspicion brings about the harms it seeks to prevent.
We saw just this dynamic happen with racism in US politics recently. People start fearing people are secret racists -- and no doubt a few are -- but to suss them out you start demanding more and more extreme rhetorical denouncements of that view. After all, whoever is least willing to distance themselves from communism/racism is most under suspicion.
The problem is that as the demands get more and more absurd at some point people start refusing to comply and they get evicerated as a racist or communist by one side and pushed into the open arms of the actual racists and communists.
So sure, it is true that conditional on someone having lefty views they are more likely to be a communist and conditional on them having right leaning views they are more likely to be a racist. But it is both good manners and good tactics to presume most people are what they say they are until they show otherwise. Yes, go ahead and accuse them of being inclined to implement X bad policy (including ones with bad racial or communist type effects) but throwing around the identity style accusations (you are secretly one of them) isn't a good idea.
"The problem with this attitude is that it is often the fear of crypto-communists that bring them about."
Uhhhhh ... are you saying that communists did not exist until people feared them? Or are you saying that communists were not dangerous until fear of them forced them underground?
Statists are always dangerous. Collectivists are more dangerous. Wannabe dictators are the most dangerous, especially when combined with graspy collectivists.
I find it far easier to believe Communists' actions made them feared, and they reacted by downplaying their dangerous beliefs; than believing they were harmless until they started hiding their worst beliefs.
Okay, I’ll admit I did not have “crypto-communist game theory” on my Monday morning Bryan Caplan bingo card.
This earlier post from yours is relevant:
https://www.econlib.org/archives/2008/11/when_do_you_dis.html
"When historians cover the Cold War, they routinely discuss cases where the U.S. supported the overthrow of a democratically elected leader who, in hindsight, definitely wasn’t a Communist. Iran’s Mossadegh, Guatemala’s Árbenz, Chile’s Allende, Congo’s Lumumba, and Indonesia’s Sukarno are the textbook examples."
For Allende and Arbenz, it is not true they "definitely" weren't Communist allies. See Kyle Orton on both:
https://www.kyleorton.com/p/myths-1954-coup-in-guatemala-united-fruit-cia
https://www.kyleorton.com/p/the-downfall-of-salvador-allende-evidence-sources-fragments
I do think this needs to consider the difference between there being a state-funded international organizing center (the KGB during the Cold War) and when there isn't (as now).
Would Deng Xiaoping be considered a crypto-capitalist?
Imagine worrying about 15% chance crypto-communists while the current leadership is pushing to murder and deport citizens.
i wonder if the USA helping to get rid of mosadeh (since you say he could have been a communist) was a good idea. i tend to side with secessionism, countries know what is best for themselves not outsiders. so i am leaning towards it was a bad idea.
I think there are two better reasons why Communism isn't considered nearly as despicable as Fascism/Nazism.
1a. Lenin and Stalin took over a secretive backwards country. They had an alphabet which no one could even try to pronounce, and had a complicated grammar. The country's culture was limited to a few dreary authors, a few composers, and ballet. They still had serfs! And Japan sank their entire Navy and beat their Army in 1905, barely 50 years after being forced to come out of their own self-isolation. Nothing Lenin and Stalin did could be any worse than what the Tsars did, and Duranty's lies in the New York Times proved that Stalin was wise and kind. Never mind that Stalin's secrecy made any contrary reports impossible; who are you going to believe, lying dissidents or the New York Times and their Pulitzer Prize-winning reports?
1b. Whereas Hitler took over a nation which had famous composers, authors, all the culture you could want, who used a real alphabet that could at least be pronounced, who had all the tourism anyone could want, open to the world, a free press, worldwide reports ... and Hitler destroyed them, murdered Jews (Stalin? Never!), extorted Britain into betraying Czechoslovaka, then broke his promise about leaving it alone, invaded Poland, conquered France -- France! -- Denmark, and Norway. A beast, destroying European culture, all with the whole world watching and crying and wailing until kindly Uncle Joe took on the world's enemy, single-handedly.
2. Stalin single-handedly beat the Nazis. Never mind that Stalin started WW II with Hitler, dividing Poland in half. Never mind that Stalin was Hitler's ally for the first two years, and whined like a little baby when Britain, fighting all by itself for those same two years, didn't send enough military aid to Stalin once Hitler stabbed him in the back. Never mind that Stalin could not have won without FDR's Lend Lease (almost all Russia's explosives and aviation gas came from the US, plus 300,000 trucks and a whole lot more). Stalin, Steel Man himself, kindly Uncle Joe, single-handedly beat Hitler!
I can't blame so many suckers in the 1920s and 1930s flocking to Communism and despising Nazism. The news the world got from Germany was a lot closer to the truth than what kindly Uncle Joe let out. And after WW II, after kindly Uncle Joe had stomped the world's arch villain, of course they stayed with Communism. And after kindly Uncle Joe's death, all they had was a shoe-pounding peasant and a bunch of geriatric fossils, until brave Mr Gorbachev started them back to The One True Path, until that actor cowboy Reagan pulled the rug out from under them. He couldn't even make good movies; only drooling rednecks could have voted for him.
Bah.