Get PJ Media on your Apple

Ron Radosh

Mary Keyserling became enthusiastic about communism after she visited the Soviet Union in 1932, and wrote that she became “sympathetic to Communist not only as a Russian idea but as a feasible program when altered for many other countries.” She wrote home that “many of us have come round to an acceptance of the major elements of Communism- altho I think we or I shall work thru the Socialist Party for a while.”

As for Leon, Storrs notes that he became converted to the doctrines of Marx while studying at Columbia University. “Economically,” he wrote to his father from college, “socialism is probably sound … the rich and the poor should not be ‘equal’ before the law. The law should help the weaker party.”

In 1932 he supported Communist candidate William Z. Foster for president, and hoped that he would get two million votes that “will mark in the future the definite turn toward socialism in this country.”

As Hawkes writes of the findings made by Storrs, the first historian to make use of the Keyserling’s previously unavailable personal letters that somehow the FBI and the congressional investigators failed to find, “this new evidence resoundingly corroborates many of the investigators’ charges.” Indeed! Keyserling wrote his father that FDR’s victory was a good thing, but “without a revolution which transfers power to the workers and takes up a socialized state, little will be gained.”

While he was working for Senator Wagner as a legislative aide and working on the draft of the National Labor Relations Act that gave organized labor legal collective bargaining rights, Keyserling wrote in 1934 that “the country is recovering too rapidly. A few more years of depression would have promoted violence, and without violence fundamental reform is unlikely.”

He saw hope, however, “in the certainty of even more serious depressions in the near future.” He then wrote that “there is no chance for lasting gains to either farmer or laborer save by revolution, and the only materials for revolt are the industrial workers.”

These comments puts Keyserling in the ranks of the far left of the Communist movement, a supporter of those who believed in the doctrine of “the worse the better,” the stance taken in Germany by the German Communists, who branded the Socialists in Weimar  Germany as “social fascists,” and who eschewed any front or alliance between the two leftist groups to defeat Hitler and the Nazis at the polls.

At that point in Communist politics, the Comintern had not as yet created the new policy of the Popular Front (an alliance of Communists with liberals and socialists), and was still beholden to the belief that revolution was imminent and that Communists had to oppose reform and try to split the trade unions and to get members into CP-led trade unions that would work for revolution rather than reform.

As reviewer Hawkes acknowledges: “clearly the McCarthyites were right to be suspicious.”

I would put it a bit differently, and say instead: the Red-baiters, and not the Reds, were right.

Both Keyserlings hid their real views, and clearly had gone into governmental work to advance the revolution by stealth means, through creating laws that they hoped would strengthen the working class and give them true class-consciousness. Then, they would play their rightful role as the agent of Revolution, as Marx predicted was their role in history and the class struggle.

As time passed, like President Harry S Truman both Keyserlings began to understand the true face of Soviet Communism, and came to understand that their earlier communist beliefs and their faith in the USSR was ill-conceived. They became part of the founding generation of Cold War liberals — the group that founded Americans for Democratic Action — and that was based on the belief that liberals could not and should not form any alliances with Communists and fellow travelers in the United States. In personal terms, it meant backing for the likes of Hubert Humphrey, the anti-Communist Minnesota political leader and future vice president, rather than the naïve Communist dupe Henry A. Wallace.

How do Hawkes and scholar Landon Storrs see this change? Hawkes writes that Leon Keyserling and his wife “tried to curry favour with their inquisitors,” who forced them to “renounce deeply held, perfectly rational beliefs through the very process of self-examination itself.”

Parse that amazing sentence.

Hawkes actually is suggesting that changing one’s beliefs — and Communism is apparently a “rational” belief — means trying to gain the approval of the right-wing by lying! He evidently cannot even conceive that any sane person could become disillusioned with the Soviets and Communism, and for any other reason than not wanting to harm his chances for a government job.

FBI investigations, Hawkes writes, “rattled the bravest people,” and “the Keyserlings were not especially brave, and they were more than rattled.” Yes, Leon Keyserling did foolishly lie about his past to investigators and congressional committees, even claiming falsely that he was a Republican in the 1930s and that he held views “to the Right of … the New Deal.” Hawkes says that the Keyserlings “were  otherwise highly principled people who must have been deeply troubled at having to perform this kind of public self-abasement.”

One can forgive them. After all, they had changed, much to the consternation of leftists like Mr. Hawkes and historian Storrs. This was especially the case because, having understood the need to stand firm against Soviet expansionism and Stalinism, the Keyserlings now supported, as Hawkes writes, lobbying “heavily for enormous increases in military spending,” for a high defense budget “necessitated by the dire threat to national survival posed by the Soviet Union.” Mr. Hawkes thinks, foolishly, that there was no Soviet threat. Thus he argues, without evidence, that the Keyserlings “were otherwise highly principled people who must have been deeply troubled at having to perform this kind of public self-abasement.” According to Hawkes, they decided to make
their lies into truth.”

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
Diane West's new book "American Betrayal" is a fasinating read about the communist infiltration. I couldn't put it down even though it broke my heart thinking of what could have been.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (18)
All Comments   (18)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
Communists are a disgusting bunch. Ideas like continuing an economic depression so THEIR aims and desires are fulfilled at the expense of hungry children is the Democrat/communist way. Maybe this is what Obama is trying to do. Prevent things like the Keystone Pipeline that could lower gasoline prices. Instead, he wants prices to sky rocket. Maybe his hoping for some sort of revolution. This article may be the key to uncovering what I believe is Obama's hidden agenda.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
The EU re-conception of WW2 as a European Civil War is entirely correct. National Socialist ran German; Communists ran Russia; Communists (secretly) ran the United States. These governments differed only in who and how many had to murdered to create the Socialist Workers' Paradise.

The future belongs to the complete and total rejection of socialism and its intellectual offspring (which are still quite popular).
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
So the Keyserlings were ahead of their time. They tried to march through the institutions at a time when someone would complain about it. Now they would be hailed and probably offered a cabinet post. And from Columbia U., who would have thunk it?

CPUSA were Marxists and Bolsheviks, not socialists.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Stealth? FDR loved the Communists and based most of his actions on Communist ideology and economics. FDR sent huge amounts of material to Stalin allowing him to overrun Eastern Europe and make the world a very dangerous place for decades. He certainly had to have known how many Communist agents were in the Federal Government because the DC spymasters were complaining to the home office that there were so many it was impossible to keep them unnoticed. Then there is the fact that FDR was more cordial with Stalin than Churchill, more admiring of Mao than Chiang Kai Shek.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Diane West's new book "American Betrayal" is a fasinating read about the communist infiltration. I couldn't put it down even though it broke my heart thinking of what could have been.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
You might want to read Radosh's self-described "takedown" of the book. http://pjmedia.com/ronradosh/2013/08/07/why-i-wrote-a-take-down-of-diana-wests-awful-book/
50 weeks ago
50 weeks ago Link To Comment
A large part of what is in her book was found in what was called the Venona project. This was an intercept of cables to and from Moscow starting around 1939 but not decoded and unclassified until much later. This confirmed a network of Soviet spies up to and possibly including Harry Hopkins, FDRs most trusted advisor. I'm only about a third of the way through the book right now but it has been giving me many sleepless nights reading. McCarthy was right!
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I promise you: the other two thirds of West's book confirm that Hopkins was a soviet agent - keep reading. I wonder if that is the real reason that Venona was maintained as such a secret from the public for so long. The official explanation, i.e. that Venona's secrecy was maintained in case the Russians made the same mistakes again, was never plausible, precisely because Washington DC was so riddled with Moscow's agents that it was inconceivable that Moscow Centre didn't know about Venona (Diana West proves that Moscow did know about it, even if it couldn't disrupt the decoding).

I used to assume that Venona was held as a secret, to provide leverage against British intelligence, which was found to be similarly compromised in the fifties (starting from twenty years earlier); West and others, however, have shown that Britain collaborated on the Venona project and that the notorious British soviet agent Kim Philby was one (not the only one) of the conduits by which information about Venona reached Moscow.

That has to raise the question of why, in that case, successive US administrations refused to reveal the truth about Venona, right up until the mid-nineties. Even the KGB's own archives were opened to scrutiny, albeit only very briefly, before Venona ever was. Harry Hopkins, it seems to me, has to be the answer. The fact that Stalin had an agent actually living in the White House was a secret that had to be preserved until hardly anyone could remember who Hopkins was. That Alger Hiss was able to piggy-back for decades on the non-disclosure of Venona is another scandal; Hiss may or may not have known about Venona from his legal sources, but it's a safe bet that he knew, from his soviet connections, that his cover was blown.

All the same, the US didn't cover up Venona for Hiss. Hiding the truth about Hopkins and preserving the myth about Roosevelt would explain the concealment. I'm not suggesting that Roosevelt himself was a communist, merely that he was spectacularly naive. Likewise, Truman and Eisenhower, both of whom would, presumably, have dealt in person with Hopkins, took the easy option of burying Hopkins' guilt, to save their own embarrassment, and subsequent Presidents may have suppressed the truth out of deference to their predecessors.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Most likely answer, they couldn't admit to the Big Lie, they needed to keep the Big Lie a secret so they could also use it. Like the old saying, the coverup is worse than the crime. The politicians were afraid if they showed how horribly wrong they were the people would lose all confidence in them. (That is if they didn't throw the lot of them in jail.)
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Well, if I were to run for President, then make no mistake about it, I WILL expose the Big Lie openly to all the people, expose ABSOLUTELY everything about the Soviet's attempted occupation of the white house, the communists in high levels, everything. Heck, should I win, I'll even expose it the very day of my inauguration, IMMEDIATELY after swearing an oath to protect the constitution from both foreign enemies and domestic enemies. I'll also make sure to undo EVERYTHING FDR and his successors did that were pro-Communist, including the creation of the UN. Lastly, I will ensure that there are mass firings of all people confirmed to be Communists, with stings being necessary. The Communists tried to exterminate Religion, this will grant them poetic justice for what they tried to do to us, not to mention what they did to innocent people. This might even set an example for any and all countries outside the US to throw the yoke off their Communist masters, and ensure that God's dominance is complete over all of humanity.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Communists have been embedded within Washington for decades, and Demsters have paved the way for their 'stealth' penetration. The 'New Deal' was nothing more than the precursor to what we are witnessing today, a TOTAL takeover by the Feds.
In effect, those who openly support the Radical-in-Chief have been part of the body politic for decades, but their effects are resonating under his reign - http://adinakutnicki.com/2012/10/05/if-it-looks-like-a-socialistmarxistcommunist-plan-it-is-peekingpeeling-back-into-obamas-looking-glass-his-surrogates-too-their-bomblets-waiting-to-explode-commentary-by-adina-kutnicki/

Heck, his mama worked for the Communist Party, as did 'Uncle Frank'!

Adina Kutnicki, Israel http://adinakutnicki.com/about/
Adina Kutnicki, Israel
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
No surprises here - The New Deal was chock-full of out-and-out communists, fellow travelers, "extreme-left-leaning" liberals and other useful idiots. They were drawn like moths to a flame when FDR embraced Keynesian economic theory and began the borrow-and-spend programs that continue to bedevil us. Franklin D. Roosevelt was a great leader but knew next to nothing about economics and didn't care very much about it. He was willing to take the advice of all of those bright young Ivy Leaguers who were anxious to expand both government power and their own power inside of government. We are still feeling the effects today.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
This could help to see the future as the Jesus Christian saves the world. The Galt type Christian in his solitude if he can not bring back Moses and Jesus (40daysand 40 nights)miracles what is his purpose?

Church and the Metroplois
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2013/07/church-in-the-metropolis
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
City builder conservative Murderer of holy Abel wins and God in the past decided to destroy the world but God has the key in the Jesus Christian to save conservative worship himself Cain's evil cities . The key unlocks the door.
After that it is up to the christian to find away to remain faithful by building the Temple of God on earth. This temple is not housed in buildings but is the converts to Jesus brought in by the faithful Christians
If this not work Saint Peter say just destroy Cains' evil by fire this time not water. But the fire of the holy spirit can purify the water turning ALL cities into Temples of God as the HOLY SPIRIT descends upon the bread (flesh)and wine (blood)
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"But the result is no community at all but “a caricature of community”: “people in black . . . their eyes half-closed, their hands clasped piously together, absorbed in the dreariness of what their mouths and souls have just tasted.”
Henri Lefebure commenting on the religion of his youth. Lift Wall Street up on a high pole idol and if another fall comes sooner than latter become will flee forever the religion of wall street despite the need for this religion in Babylon
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Peter Leithart at first things and here

http://trinityhouseinstitute.com/the-festival-and-the-mass/
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
" Keyserling wrote in 1934 that “the country is recovering too rapidly. A few more years of depression would have promoted violence, and without violence fundamental reform is unlikely.”"

Gee, and we aren't recovering at all these days due to (intentionally?) bad policies by someone tutored by a marxist and is helping to inflame racial passions and has stated he wants fundamental transformation.

But to even raise an eyebrow at his policies is racist and entirely dismissable.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
1 2 Next View All