It is impossible to get into a good stew about the American Universities without whirling around some big tangents from the Fifties, and even before then.
One of the biggest “disruptors” of the university system was the GI Bill. It was posited that those who had put their lives at risk for their country should be given the opportunity to achieve advanced education from that country for whom they risked so much. Remember, at that time, there was still enough radical populism for people to imagine that they actually were their country, that America depended upon and obeyed their vote and the will of the people. Like it says in that awful Declaration of Independence.
That went poorly.
Many of the origins of strain in American governance arose from the adopting of ideas that were somewhat different when applied in the New World than the Old. I do not want to wander through the pretense of new order and civility in the New World – beastly things were done from the get-go on our side of the planet.
One of the hardest ideas to fit into American thought was class warfare and Marxism. America has begun to establish a true class-based system, and we have a secret longing for Kings and Lords under different guise today, it seems. But that is a habit that we have picked up in the relatively recent past. Jefferson has always had a slight lead over Adams in the public debate – and even Adams was not a royalist.
Marxism fit well into the longstanding traditions of Europe; it did not build up with the same sturdiness in America, find the same good soil, in the same way that Prussian military methods did not fit up well in American military theory. It is no surprise that military Prussianism prevailed only by virtue of the outcome of the Civil War, and the Prussianist leanings of the North. The South operated under a much different military theory, a much more endemic military theory. When one studies the leadership of Forrest, Quantrell and Mosby, one can see that Mao, the VC and ISIS operate under re-discovered techniques and plans, one sees that Mao was a mere copycat of Quantrill, if he knew of his techniques. Perhaps he merely re-invented military doctrine that already was a hundred years old, and erroneously discarded by American military theory. I digress; but this essay is a set of digressions anyway.
One of the hardest points to embrace in reading Marxist theory is that it arose from genuinely Modernist European concepts. History could be told rationally, and the same forces which developed in the past could be used to project forward into the future, rationally planning and structuring the world to come. There are clear fatalities in reality of the Marxist analysis of history, and Marxism is rightly dead today. But so is Jamesian psychology, if one expect it to stand alone on its own, in the world of serotonin receptors and neurobiochemistry.
One of the differences between the arts and the sciences is that old art can be treasured, even though the moment has passed. Old science is just junk. Yes, we have museums for the Eniac and the Osborne computer and the LISA – museums are for art. Nobody claims legitimacy for old science. The Apollo mission, in fact, took place with the computing capacity that took the mission to the moon and back, with no more analytical power than one of the hand-calculators of the late 1990’s on board. Fancy that. I digress.
To point ahead a bit to the nineteen-twenties and thirties, one realizes that Leninism, and its afterechos – Trotskyism and Stalinism – showed that Marxism was dead, an old bitch gone in the teeth, and their ‘isms only served to show that, like their famous mausoleums, zombie Marxism shambled on after their leadership had passed away.
Trotsky lost his head, in a sense, because he had been the proponent of world revolution; rather than Stalin’s claim of socialism in one country – that was the slogan that he used to ride to power. It is a bit grotesque that he sought to meet with the US government to warn us of the threat of Stalinism; the conceptual inversions would puzzle Escher.
In their ham-handed pursuit of the International Revolution, the Soviets looked to the US – which had recently collapsed into the Great Depression – and attempted to madly seed the political environment here with pro-Marxist dreams. They did not get it, of course – they absolutely did not get the American mind.
But the soft-shoes and sneakies seriously jacked up the genuine liberal and reform efforts of the once-meaningful American Left. They spent money on shiteaters, distracted and confused people by injecting crappy and phony neo-Marxism into the American culture, and managed to do the opposite of what they intended. Instead of obtaining leverage within the American left, they pretty much wrecked it.
Quoting the source of the term, shiteaters:
In examining different kinds of agents, people from the free world who have sold themselves to the GRU, one cannot avoid touching on yet another category, perhaps the least appealing of all. Officially one is not allowed to call them agents, and they are not agents in the full sense of being recruited agents. We are talking about the numerous members of overseas societies of friendship with the Soviet Union. Officially, all Soviet representatives regard these parasites with touching feelings of friendship, but privately they call them ‘shit-eaters’ (‘govnoed‘). It is difficult to say where this expression originated, but it is truly the only name they deserve. The use of this word has become so firmly entrenched in Soviet embassies that it is impossible to imagine any other name for these people. A conversation might run as follows: Today we’ve got a friendship evening with shit-eaters’, or Today we’re having some shit-eaters to dinner. Prepare a suitable menu’.
Officers of both the GRU and the KGB have very much more respect for their agents than for the shit-eaters. The motives of agents are clear — an easy life and plenty of money. If you take risks and lose, then no money and no easy life. To the end of his life the agent will not be able to tear himself away from this servitude — as is the case in the criminal world. But the behaviour of the numerous friends of the Soviet Union is utterly incomprehensible to Soviet people. In the Soviet Union everybody without exception wishes to be abroad, to go absolutely anywhere, even if only with one eye to look at Mongolia or Cambodia. Oh! to be abroad, is the cry, led by the children of Brezhnev, Gromyko and Andropov. When Soviet people want to say that a thing is outstandingly good, they say, ‘Really, this must be foreign.’ It does not matter which country it comes from, or what its quality or age — it has to be foreign. But suddenly one finds these friends of the Soviet Union, who enjoy all the fruits of civilisation down to Gillette razor blades, who can buy anything they want in the shops, even bananas, and yet they praise the Soviet Union. No, these people are nothing but shit-eaters according to Soviet intelligence. The contempt felt for them does not prevent the GRU and KGB from using them whenever they can. They do everything free, and they will even come to meetings in secure places like the Soviet Embassy.
The recruitment of such people is not recommended by the Central Committee, but why bother to recruit them when they bring such advantages without being recruited? The GRU usually makes use of the shit-eaters ‘in the dark’, in other words not saying what they are used for or how much they benefit from their services. They usually ask from them information about their neighbours, friends, acquaintances, fellow workers and so on. Sometimes one of them is asked to organise an evening party with one or another of his acquaintances, after which the GRU thanks him and tells him to forget what has happened. They are very good people, they forget everything.
By the way – I am skeptical that this website has been endorsed by Suvurov to print his material. I recommend purchasing Inside The GRU (SovMilInt) and Suvorov’s other books, to make up for this trespass. It is a potent anti-stupidity treatment.
It was the govnoed who damaged the American Left, early on – in the twenties and thirties – and basically eradicated any chance of persistence of a genuine American progressive movement after WWII. There never was more than a smattering of naive pro-Soviet intellectuals in the US by the end of WWII. Just govnoed.
Into this setting came Joe McCarthy. He was actually onto something, but it was not a spontaneous movement from within America, but an astroturf movement created by GRU puppeteers. There might have been a reform movement, and the lack of apparent Soviet connections with the 60’s university movement reinforces that Americans are deeply interested in internal reform and change of existing institutions. But the puppeteers destroyed any chance of reform; and paradoxically, assisted the military-industrial-university coalition that was to form after Eisenhower’s retirement.