Archive for the ‘Communism’ Category

March 8 panel brings together victims of communism from five countries – The Post Millennial

Human Events and the Liberty Forum of Silicon Valley are hosting a five-person discussion panel next Tuesday, titled "Paying the Price Understanding the Life of a Political Dissident." It'll be a conversation with five members who've experienced communist regimes at their zenith in the 20th century.

It'll be both an in-person and virtual event on March 8 at 10 pm EST, 7 pm Pacific Time. The discussion is sponsored by the Victims of Communism Foundation and moderated by Human Events managing editor Brent Hamachek. The registration page says the venue is the Elite Event Center in Santa Clara, California.

Hamachek outlined the inspiration to put on the event in the first place:

"After I gave my talk in July, Peter Palecek, a real-life dissident and now a panel member, came up to me and shared his thoughts on how important the message was. He said that the story I told at the end about a contemporary American dissident woman who was forced to run barefoot on rocks brought tears to his eyes because it brought everything back to him. He also said that everyone in the world needed to hear the message. I felt like we needed to do something like this. Im grateful to the Liberty Forum of Silicon Valley for making it become a reality."

The five guests who, despite coming from various backgrounds, share the same theme of living under a particular kind of authoritarian governmental rule:

Frank de Varona was born in Cuba and spent his early adult years as a member of the 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion. He spent a few years in prison as punishment for that, but ultimately managed to return to America and had a successful 38-year long career as a teacher for the Miami-Dade County Public Schools.

The panelist's work as a prolific author and writer has led Varona to discuss what prevalence socialism has had recently here in the United States.

Peter Palecek was born in Czechoslovakia back in 1939, the same year of the Nazi takeover. The Gestapo arrested Palecek's mother during their time in charge. When the communists took over in the country, Palecek's father ended up being sent to a prison camp. Meanwhile, Palecek himself grew up to become a critique of the ruling party and was targeted with surveillance by state forces.

Peter Wolf escaped from East Germany in 1959. The book "Because I Can" captured Wolf's recollections from growing up in East Germany before escaping.

Sutton Van Vo grew up during the tensions in Vietnam during the 20th century. They served as a major for the South Vietnamese army, but then spent over a decade in various prisons throughout the country after the Communist takeover.

Back in 2017, he denounced an 18-hour, 10-part documentary published by Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) about the Vietnam War as "pure propaganda" for their depiction of the conflict. The panelist's main critique was how PBS didn't spend enough time or attention talking about South Vietnam's role.

Tatiana Menaker, who hails from Leningrad in the Soviet Union, ended up writing for an "underground Christian feminist magazine" that eventually led her to arrest. Escaping the Soviet Union, she and her partner fled to America. In a 2016 profile by The Atlantic, they labeled her a "hardcore Republican" who helmed a tour guide business while raising three kids. Eventually Tatiana became outspoken against the Marxism she witnessed as a student at San Francisco State University.

A similar discussion of the onslaught of far-left ideology and the sociopolitical state of the world took place during the "Tocqueville Conversations" conference in France last year. Alexis de Tocqueville's present-day descendant Jean-Guillaume hosted this meeting of the minds to debate American politics.

The rest is here:
March 8 panel brings together victims of communism from five countries - The Post Millennial

What Putin’s war is really about – International Investment

If there was one thing that still united citizens of the Communist block in the early 1990s, it was the widespread hope to escape the Soviet drab, says Johannes Mueller, Head Of Research Macro Research, DWS Group.

No matter their disparate nationalities or their age, citizens hoped for a "normal" life of the sort most citizens of the democratic societies in the "West" take for granted.

Getting richer, but also being able to read and think what you want, and say or write what you think, without the fear of government oppression or foreign invasion.

In purely economic terms, some countries have succeeded better than others, 30 years on, as our "Chart of the Week" illustrates. Measured at current prices and purchasing power parity, it shows that at the end of Communism, Ukraine had roughly the same gross domestic product (GDP) per capita as Poland. Today, it is only a fraction. Poland has even surpassed commodity rich Russia by a decent margin. The same is true of Latvia; the other two Baltic states have done better still.

This probably understates Russia's economic performance from the point of view of its average citizens, not only because of higher income levels than most to begin with, as the imperial and industrial center of the old Soviet bloc. Since 1990 the distribution of income and wealth appears to have become extremely unequal; some estimates suggest that the amount of private wealth siphoned offshore over the years by the very richest Russians stood at about three times the official net foreign reserves by 2015.

For critical Russian journalists deemed incorrigible enemies, the reprisals, intimidation and, ultimately, murders of, began almost immediately upon Putin's initial ascent to power.

For most other Eastern Europeans, notably in Poland and the Baltic states, membership of the European Union (EU) offered an alternative model of how to combine economic with political freedom.

Russia's first invasion of Ukraine in 2014 was sparked by a trade treaty with the EU, not by any realistic prospect of joining NATO. Similarly, the main demands among democracy activists in neighboring Belorussia that prompted the Moscow backed crackdown were better relations with the EU.

Contrary to what Putin seems to think, Ukrainians have long seen themselves as a clearly separate, European nation still in the process of defining where it stands vis a vis its neighbours.

And if that wasn't provocation enough, they want to determine their own future through free and fair elections - as it is normal in most of Europe. That Putin sees it a mortal threat says as much about his regime as the terrible scenes of cities getting bombed the world is currently witnessing.

30 years after the end of Soviet Communism, EU membership has proven a key factor in determining economic performance.

Sources: International Monetary Fund, World Economic Outlook Database, DWS Investment GmbH as of 10/31/21*Gross domestic product per capita in current price

Here is the original post:
What Putin's war is really about - International Investment

OPINION | LETTERS TO THE EDITOR: The communists won | Cannot chew on that | Ukraine is suffering – Arkansas Online

The communists won

Wow. It seems the GOP is showing its true colors; it's really a shill for the Communist Party. Fox News is its propaganda arm.

Look at the recent evidence. Glowing praise for Putin; lockstep followers of a wannabe-Putin; downplaying an insurrection against American democracy; suppressing voter rights, women's rights, LGBTQ rights; cozying up to the NRA to ensure they can be armed and ready for the next insurrection attempt; ignoring the needs of the American people.

Putin didn't get his way through Trump's inability to overthrow the American government, so apparently he waited until Trump could sell him all the national secrets Trump has reportedly been hiding in Florida. Notice North Korea is emboldened now that Trump is out of office. Trump carried on a very public bromance with these two dictators, and for the right price, I have no doubt he would sell out America.

I'm disgusted thinking of my family and friends drafted and sent to Vietnam to fight communism just so the GOP could hand it over. Shall we start calling each other "comrade" now?

KAREN WOODS

Flippin

Cannot chew on that

I'm thinking that Ukraine may well be Vladimir Putin's Mogadishu. Russia took a beating by a bunch of tribal Afghans with no national unity, basically fighting with rocks and sticks, and he thinks he can beat an educated, armed, resolute people with a fierce sense of national pride?

After thinking about it I'm guessing Putin has bitten off a lot more than he can chew. Ukraine will hand him a licking.

JEFF COOK

Springdale

Ukraine is suffering

The people of Ukraine are suffering an indefensible attack on their country, and I cannot sleep peacefully while there are pictures in the news of frightened people sheltering in subways with their children and pets.

I condemn Vladimir Putin as a criminal. I will not commit treason and congratulate his villainy on broadcast news.

MELODEE PLACIAL

Bella Vista

Turn away invaders

When I was a child in Europe, I used to play in bombed-out buildings left over from World War II. The lesson was clear. If you don't want the whole world to look like that, you must turn out the invaders right away.

CARI KING

Pocahontas

Other world leaders

Vladimir Putin is without a doubt a master of strategy. Europe, America and other nations finance him. He furnishes the humans, of whom he has many. He makes the other world leaders look like amateurs. Is that what they are? Amateurs? Or idiots? Or both?

JOHN HAIN

Little Rock

Stories about people

An offhand remark by Thomas Friedman in his book "Thank You for Being Late" caught my attention: "... the best-selling book of all time is a collection of stories about people. It's called the Bible." One might say, Oh, I thought it was about rules and regulations, about morality, or about God and Jesus. True enough, but it's mostly about how people, ordinary people for the most part, reacted to the concept of God and Jesus. Three of the most well-known are:

1. David: Usually thought of as an underdog going up against an impregnable force. There are hints, though, that it might have been the other way around. Goliath may have suffered from double vision; accusing David of coming at him with staffs rather than one staff. Other factors in David's favor were Goliath's arrogance, over-confidence, and probable unfamiliarity with the damage a simple sling and a rock could inflict.

2. Moses: The meek, reluctant hero. Think of a Jimmy Stewart western where the hero (Jimmy) is bullied, beaten up, and humbled before he finally stands up to the villain and prevails. Pharaoh, the bully. Moses the reluctant challenger prevails only after 10 encounters, demonstrating persistence pays off.

3. Samson: Punisher of the Philistines. Strong of body, weak of mind. A killing machine susceptible to the wiles of a pretty face. His only connection to God seems to be his willingness to wear his hair long to be identified as a Nazarene until he was brought low by being blinded by his enemies and in a state of weakness turned to God as his source of strength to inflict one final devastating blow to the Philistines.

Hopefully, Ukraine will turn out to be a David and Vladimir Putin a myopic Goliath.

JOHN McPHERSON

Searcy

See more here:
OPINION | LETTERS TO THE EDITOR: The communists won | Cannot chew on that | Ukraine is suffering - Arkansas Online

The Overlooked Loyalties of Ethel Rosenberg – Jewish Currents

Discussed in this essay: Ethel Rosenberg: An American Tragedy, by Anne Sebba. St. Martins Press, 2021. 320 pages.

For more than 40 years, it was axiomatic on the left that Julius and Ethel Rosenbergthe Jewish couple famously executed on June 19th, 1953, as spies who turned the designs for the atom bomb over to the Sovietswere innocent victims, scapegoats of the McCarthy era. In the decades after their execution, one could be certain that each June, an article would appear in the pages of this magazine that picked apart the governments case by pointing to apparent absurdities in the charges leveled against the Rosenbergs ring: What kind of spies showed up at each others doors using their real names? Could something as silly as a jaggedly cut Jell-O box really have been a sign by which Soviet spies recognized each other? Could a drawing by Ethels brother David Greenglass, who had no postsecondary education, actually have enabled the Soviets to manufacture their own bomb? The lefts consensusclinched by book-length treatments of the case like Walter and Miriam Schneirs 1966 study Invitation to an Inquestwas that the Rosenbergs were framed, killed not for espionage but because they were Jews and, despite their unwavering denial, committed Communists.

This theory came crashing down in 1995 when newly released Soviet files, known as the Venona transcripts, demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that Julius was not only a spy, but the head of a ring of mainly Jewish comrades, including David. But if the transcripts confirmed Juliuss guilt, they showed that Ethels role was limited to knowledge of the espionage ring and recommending her sister-in-law Ruth for the role of typistthus undermining the narrative advanced by the state in Ethels conviction. A few years later, Juliuss Soviet handler, Aleksander Feklisov, affirmed that Ethel knew about Juliuss work but was not a spy herself. She had nothing to do with thisshe was completely innocent, he said. David eventually admitted that his testimony that Ethel had typed up the notes he provided on the Manhattan Projectwhich led to her convictionwas made only to protect himself and his wife.

At the time of the case, those who believed Ethel wasnt guilty of the charges brought against her wondered: Why would the devoted mother of two young children, knowing she was innocent, remain silent on penalty of death, leaving her children orphans? The question persists today, and Anne Sebbas recent biography, Ethel Rosenberg: An American Tragedy, attempts to answer it. Sebbas book rounds out the portrait of the martyr, revealing her to be both a product of her times and a rebel against them: a devoted housewife who had left her artistic hopes and work life behind to devote her days to motherhood, a political militant, the scorned daughter of a family that preferred her brotherand, in the end, a victim of mass hysteria induced by the ambient anti-communism of her era, and heightened by her violation of social norms surrounding the appearance and conduct of women. Sebbas carefully considered accountone of the few treatments of the case to focus on Ethelis fair and sympathetic without falling into the trap of hagiography. By detailing the contours of Ethels life, the book helps us understand the flesh-and-blood woman who would be transformed into a political symbol. But in failing to deeply read Ethels own politics, it falls short of providing a compelling explanation of her infamous silence.

Ethel Rosenberg, born Ethel Greenglass in 1915, was a product of Manhattans largely Jewish Lower East Side. From a young age, she sang, acted, and dreamed of a life in the arts. (Her high school classmates elected her class actress.) But while she was talented enough to sing in a professional choir, the reality of life as a poor Jew forced her to find office work as a way to support herself and her family. It was there that she discovered the left-wing politics that would become her dominant interest. Sebba describes how she led a strike at her workplace that resulted in her firing from her position, a job restored to her by the newly established National Labor Relations Board, which allowed workers to organize in unions without fear of retribution. She soon became one of what Sebba estimates were 3,000 Communists on the Lower East Side, probably the largest concentration of Party members in the US. In 1939, she signed a petition to put the Communist candidate for City Council, Peter V. Cacchione, on the ballota fact that would later be used against her at trial. (Hard as it is to believe now, Cacchione, leader of the Communist Party in Brooklyn, was eventually elected in 1941 and then re-elected twice.)

Ethel met Julius, a City College student, in December 1936, and by all accounts theirs was a story of shared love and activism. Ethel gave birth to the couples first child, Michael, in 1943, and the second, Robby, in 1947; in Sebbas portrayal, her dedication to her sons was as whole-hearted as her devotion to her husband and her politics. Michael was a difficult child, and Ethel studied all the available sources in an attempt to find the best way to help him. (Sebba notes that she continued her subscription to Parents magazine even while imprisoned and awaiting trial, when she had little chance of ever spending time alone with her boys again.) The Rosenbergs struggled financially, as Julius ran a series of failed businesses, yet Ethel remained a stay-at-home mother, abandoning her lingering dreams of making it on the stage. At the same time, she deepened her political organizing, which became inseparable from her marriage; for example, the couple together campaigned for Communist Party candidates and supported the Spanish Republicans. As Sebba writes, [A]lthough communism theoretically championed the equality of the sexes, it was not theory that interested Ethel. From now on she . . . turned instead, in her single-minded way, to political activism and Julius.

This all came to a crashing end on July 17th, 1950, when Julius was arrested. In the weeks after her husband was taken into custody, Ethel was called to testify before a grand jury, but refused to answer their questions. In August, after a particularly bruising day of questioning, she was met at the courthouse by two FBI agents who arrested her for violation of the Espionage Act of 1917. Government officials involved in the case would later admit in private that Ethel was arrested, and then tried and sentenced, primarily as a means of pressuring Julius to talk.

Though both Rosenbergs were vilified in the press, Ethel was cast in an especially negative lightoften for reasons irrelevant to the issues of the case. Her unprepossessing appearance was, as Sebba shows, often held against her, with journalists describing her as wearing the tired uniform of the clerk or stenographera dark wool skirt, a whitewash blouse and a white wool sweater, as having a dish-face complexion, and as slightly dumpy. Even her hair was critiqued; one journalist wrote that she failed to make the best of her naturally curly dark hair. Her bob is neither long nor short and it needs shaping. Her calm demeanor at the couples trial was taken by some as proof that it was Ethel who was the real brains behind the spy ring.

Though the judge and the prosecuting attorneyswho included Roy Cohnwere also Jews, there was an undercurrent of Jew=communist in the trial and the reaction to it. As Sebba points out, it was no coincidence that, at a time when 25% of New Yorks population was Jewish, the jury contained not a single Jew. The Rosenbergs were poorly defended by their attorneys, who had no experience with criminal trials nearly as grave as this one, and who, in an effort to soften the court towards the defendants, did little to push back against testimony to which they could have objected. Pressed on their politics, both Julius and Ethel took the Fifth Amendment, which was their right. But at that time, the height of the Cold War, their silence was viewed as at best an obfuscation, and at worst an admission that they had chosen the side of the enemy. It took the jury an afternoon and morning of deliberations to find them guilty, and Judge Irving Saypol, in sentencing them to death, blamed them for the deaths of Americans in Korea and the looming threat of a Soviet bomb.

Legal and personal appeals followed, as well as an international campaign in the Rosenbergs defense. (Sebba tells us that the American Communist Party shied away from the case so as not to be tainted with the charge of espionage.) Despite all thisand despite evidence that Ethel was never the governments real targetPresident Eisenhower refused to grant clemency, fearing that granting Ethel a reprieve would encourage other housewives to turn to espionage. A last-ditch effort by the couples lawyers to delay the execution, which had been scheduled on the Sabbath, only resulted in the hour being moved up. Julius was executed first, then Ethel. The Rosenbergs had entered history.

In the end, there is no way to understand Ethels conductor Juliussexcept through the lens of their political stance: their fidelity to Communism and the Soviet Union. While Sebba recognizes this dimension, she doesnt get to what was at the heart of their actions. Appreciating this commitment, and taking account of the specific period during which the spy ring was active and the trial occurred, is essential to comprehending how these two peopledevoted spouses, dedicated and loving parentsgave their lives so stoically for their cause.

Juliuss political allegianceswhich Ethel clearly sharedwere formed by the fact that he was a spy during World War II, when the US and the USSR were allies in the battle against fascism. (This fact has often been held up as evidence that the trial and sentence were iniquitous, since whatever was turned over to the Soviets was technically turned over to allies.) Long before D-Day in June 1944, Communists (and many others) around the world had called for the establishment of a second front. In Europe, only the Red Army and the various resistance movements were actively fighting the Nazis. Anything that could be done to assist Stalins army was a blow against fascism, and that meant there was no higher calling for a Communist than to be a comrade in arms with the Soviet soldiers who fought at Stalingrad, Leningrad, and Kursk, or with the Communist-led partisans fighting and dying in France, Yugoslavia, and Greece. Feklisov wrote in his memoirs of Juliuss almost obsessive love for the Soviet Union, describing how he cherished being considered as brave as the partisans who fought behind Nazi lines. Julius further demonstrated his ideological motivations by never asking for payment, and only ever grudgingly accepting small sums from the Soviets, despite his familys dire financial straits. As his espionage unfolded in the final years of the war, he understood himself to be at one with the fighters in Europe, risking his freedom and his life much as Titos Communist guerillas did by fighting the Nazis in Yugoslavia and Zhukovs armies did as they fought their way across Europe.

Ethel was equally committed to the Soviet Union as a beacon of both workers rights and antifascism. While it seems certain that had she broken under pressure she would have survived, as her brother did, cooperating with the prosecution would have meant denying everything she and Julius had fought for and believed in. Even more, it would have been a betrayal of the fight against fascism. Julius himself made this manichean choice clear, writing about the trial in a 1952 letter from prison to Ethel: If we are able to contribute something in the the great fight for peace and against fascism and I believe that we have already made an important contribution to aid in this fight, then we have turned the tables on the prosecution and have advanced the cause of justice and freedom.

The Rosenbergs have long been cast as either nefarious villains or superhuman heroes. Both views obscure the truth: They were passionate ideologues, inspired and constrained by the politics of their particular moment. We honor them best by understanding who they were in all their humanity. Even as it fails to fully plumb the depths of the Rosenbergs devotion to their politics, by illuminating the couples choices and the historical backdrop against which they made them, Sebbas Ethel Rosenberg takes us a long way along the road to that comprehension.

Originally posted here:
The Overlooked Loyalties of Ethel Rosenberg - Jewish Currents

Langston Hughes: Progressive poet and wanderer Communist Party USA – Communist Party USA

On a cool, tropical morning in the tumultuous year of 1931, the American poet Langston Hughes woke up snugly and confusedly on the inside of a large clay drainage pipe. The pipe, his home for the previous night, was one of a series of large pipes that sat estranged on the side of a mountainous road somewhere in rural Haiti, perhaps to later be placed under roads to drain the overflowing streams that flood under the weight of violent storms with their heavy rains. But at this moment they remained underutilized in the applied field of water redistribution and instead became a source of warmth for the poet whose bus had run out of gas the night before.

At this moment in time, the 29-year-old poet faced an uncertain future he was relatively well-known in literary circles but was in no way famous; he was consistently winning literary prizes but was in no way rich; well-endowed with inspiration, yet destitute of financial stability. That he made it this far was impressive enough, considering the overwhelming odds against him as a working-class Black man in America, but despite it all, he went on to establish himself as one of the most celebrated poets of the 20th century.

In his childhood, Langston Hughes lived a volatile life, his father left behind the family and the unbearable racism of America for Mexico; his mother traveled incessantly to find work, he lived in and out of poverty often with his grandmother as he moved from Missouri to Kansas, from Kansas to Illinois, from Illinois to Ohio, all before graduating high school. But it was his time in Cleveland, while attending Central High School between 1916 and 1920, when his passion for poetry developed most rapidly and thoroughly. Ethel Weimers second-year English course taught him the works of Amy Lowell, Edgar Lee Masters, Vachel Lindsay, and, most impactfully to the young Mr. Hughes, Carl Sandburg. Although I had read of Carl Sandburg before . . . I didnt really know him until Miss Weimer. . . . Then I began to try to write like Carl Sandburg (Hughes 1993). The young poet was also fervently engaged in extracurricular activities and often wore a sweater that proved this; it was covered in club pins. He was on the track team, served as a lieutenant in the schools military training corps, edited the yearbook, served as class president, occasionally made the monthly honor roll, and wrote many of his early poems for the schools magazine, the Belfry Owl.

Moving between overpriced kitchenette apartments, Hughes witnessed the harsh realities of the segregated geography and racist economy. But he also encountered the fleeting cultural beauty that blossomed. Clevelands Central High School, a Victorian Gothic building on Central Avenue (since destroyed), hosted a diverse community of European immigrants from Poland, Russia, Italy, and also served a growing Black community. This made for a hotbed of radical ideas. His classmates lent him The Gadfly, introduced him to the Liberator, and took him to hear Eugene Debs speak. They knew that it was wrong that Debs was locked up, they knew that Lenin sent a shockwave from Russia to the slums of Woodlawn Avenue, and when the Russian Revolution broke out, our school almost held a celebration (Hughes 2002, 49).

The years after graduation, like much of his life, involved a seamless continuation of movement, never finding a firm residence for more than a year, floating from one place or job to the next, but always with his sights set on his true passion: writing. From 1925 to 1930 his career picked up: he won poetry contests; published his first two books, The Weary Blues and Fine Clothes to the Jew; graduated from Lincoln University; was taken up by a wealthy patron of the arts, Mrs. Mason; and published his first novel, Not without Laughter. During the economically depressed year of 1931, Hughes traveled to Cuba and Haiti and began writing for the radical press.

I went to Haiti to get away from my troubles, he wrote honestly about his trip. Hed just spent Christmas with his mother in Cleveland and intended to take a bus to Key West. Fortunately for Hughes he met a fellow poet named Zell Ingram, a disenchanted student at the Cleveland School of Art who, conveniently for Hughes, was desperate to quit his classes and travel. They took Ingrams mothers car, both with $300 in their pocket, down to the coast. After the turbulent break with his patron, Mrs. Mason, he thought it necessary to sit in the sun awhile and think. . . . So in Haiti I began to puzzle out how I, a Negro, could make a living in America from writing (Hughes 1993).

In the sun, he began writing for the communist magazine New Masses, a bastion for what lead editor Mike Gold called proletarian literature. In its pages, Hughes warned poetically of an insurmountable foe in Havana, a pirate called THE NATIONAL CITY BANK. He wrote of Haiti as a world of black people without shoes who catch hell, a country with a deteriorating Citadel, rusting while the planes of the United States Marines hum daily overhead. By the middle of their trip, Hughes and Ingram grew tired. At this point Zell, who had never traveled before outside the confines of the U.S.A., said he wished he had stayed home in Cleveland.

Hughes returned wearily to New York where he had little time to decompress before going on a tour of the South. In 1931 thered been twelve known lynchings in the South, of which Hughes was painfully aware during his voyage. He wrote two poems about one of the most pressing conflicts of 1931, the Scottsboro case. BLACK BOYS IN A SOUTHERN JAIL. / WORLD, TURN PALE! Hughes wrote. Nine young Black men were accused of raping two white women on a freight train traveling through Alabama, and their arrest almost led to a lynching. The prosecution played out through years of court cases and appeals led by the Communist Party and the NAACP, which eventually resulted in most of the nine defendants being released. The next year he wrote a short play and four poems on the case called Scottsboro, Limited.

In keeping with his momentum of ceaseless travel, in the summer of 1932 the inquisitive Hughes sailed to the land of John Reeds Ten Days That Shook the World, the land where race prejudice was reported taboo, the land of the Soviets. He was accompanied by twenty-two young Black Americans to make a Soviet-led film on race relations in the U.S. A third of his autobiography, I Wonder as I Wander ([1956] 1993), focuses on his impactful time spent in the socialist country. However, the reflections stay relatively indifferent, devoid of any strong opinions due to Americas censorship and blacklists of the 1950s.

Noticeably absent from his autobiography, for example, are his poems that speak highly of Lenin and revolution. Some of his most politically charged works have been censored from collections of his poetry; works like One More S in the U.S.A. [to make it Soviet] and Ballads of Lenin might be conveniently omitted from an innocent collection of his wide assemblage of poems.

But he nonetheless spoke honestly of the hospitable treatment of himself and his crewmates in the USSR, who were always introduced as representatives of the great Negro people. On the streets queuing up for newspapers, for cigarettes, or soft drinks, often folks in the line would say, Let the Negro comrade go forward. If you demurred, they would insist, Please! Visitor to the front. Even as the movie fell apart, he noted that hed never been paid such a high rate or lived in such comfort: All of us were being paid regularly, wined and dined overmuch. . . . I had never stayed in such hotels in my own country since, as a rule, Negroes were not then permitted to do so. Besides, I had never had enough money for such fine living in America (Hughes 1993).

His adventures eventually landed him humbly back in Ohio, residing with his distant cousins in Oberlin to care for his sick mother. Hed never been to the small town located not far west of Cleveland. He knew few things about the town other than that his distant cousins lived there, and that his grandmother, Mary Patterson Langston who was married to Sheridan Leary who died fighting with John Brown was the first Black woman to attend Oberlin College.

On his return to Ohio, Hughes engaged with the local theater scene. In the Fairfax neighborhood of Clevelands east side is the still standing Karamu House, the oldest African American theater in the United States, opened in 1915. Most of Hughes plays were developed and performed at the theater, which premiered many of his works throughout the 1930s. In 1936 and 1937 alone, Karamu House put on a stream of plays almost as quickly as Hughes could write them. This included his farce, Little Ham, a comedy titled Joy to My Soul, and a historical drama about Haiti called Troubled Island.

Perhaps itching to travel again, Hughes ventured in summer 1937 back to Europe, first to Paris for the International Writers Congress where he enjoyed a venturesome excursion that included a memorable gala and the attendance of a motorcycle race with the famous photographer Henri Cartier-Bresson, whom hed briefly lived with in Mexico then to Spain where he finished the year reporting on the brutal civil war for the Baltimore Afro-American. Some of the men in the International Brigades had told me they came to Spain to help keep war and fascism from spreading. War and fascisma great many people at home in America seemed to think those words were just a left-wing slogan. But of course it wasnt just a slogan to Hughes or those who fought unremittingly against fascism in Spain. Endless years of moving and traveling, Hughes wondered what the future held for him, Europe, and the world:

Would the world really end?

Not my world, I said to myself. My world will not end.

But worldsentire nations and civilizationsdo end. In the snowy night in the shadows of the old houses of Montmartre, I repeated to myself, My world wont end.

But how could I be so sure? I dont know.

For a moment I wondered. (Hughes 1993)

In the paranoia and anti-communism of the 1950s, Hughes was interrogated in March 1953 by Roy Cohn at an executive session of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. He refused to name names, but, under the threat of being blacklisted and seeing his career ruined, renounced his radical views but not before educating the committee members on what it meant to be an African American in America. The results of which led to a decade of relative political neutrality in his work, earning him criticisms from all sides, but keeping his career and passport intact something many other communists had been deprived of.

Nonetheless, Langston Hughes lived a zealous life as a traveler and a poet, an activist and an artist. His communist politics developed from his early years in Cleveland to the USSR to Spain and everywhere in between. His work was torn violently by the hostilities of historical revisionism during the Cold War, the ruptures visible and unsustainable. One side of him was canonized, the other suppressed by anti-communism and cynicism. His work was effectively censored, stripped of its revolutionary foundations, and muffled of its political radicalism. But the two can be rejoined. Like the moments separating a brief strike of lightning and its booming roll of thunder, we wait patiently to hear its roll and remember that the two are intertwined. His revolutionary works sit waiting to be compounded, to strike with a lively force a new generation of proletarian artists who can revive the totality of Langston Hughes and bring about the O mighty roll of the Revolution.

SourcesLangston Hughes, I Wonder as I Wander, Hill and Wang, (1956) 1993. epub.Langston Hughes, The Big Sea, vol. 13 of The Collected Works of Langston Hughes. Columbia, University of Missouri Press, 2002.

Images: Top, photo by Gordon Parks, Wikipedia (Public Domain); Hughes in 1928, Wikipedia (public domain); Scottsboro defendants, Wikipedia (fair use); Republican forces in Spanish Civil War, Wikipedia (CCO).

Read the original:
Langston Hughes: Progressive poet and wanderer Communist Party USA - Communist Party USA