Bogus Khrushchev Quote Makes the Rounds Again
Thursday November 13, 2008
In case you weren't properly terrified at the prospect of President-elect Obama and his "terrorist pals" remaking this country into a communist police state, the right-wing blogosphere would like you to get a load of this prescient quote from a past leader of the Soviet Union:
Folks have been trying to authenticate the passage, to no avail, ever since it was first foisted on the American public around 1960. The late Rep. Morris Udall chronicled his own efforts to do so in an article published in The New Republic some 46 years ago. His query to the Library of Congress yielded this reply:
Here it is, still in use some 50 years later, the only difference being that now they want us to believe it sums up the attitude and agenda of Barack Obama.
And so it continues!
AND SO IT BEGINS!Except, um, Comrade Khrushchev never said any such thing.
"We cannot expect Americans to jump from capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving Americans small doses of socialism until they suddenly awake to find they have Communism."
-Soviet Leader Nikita Khrushchev, 1959
Folks have been trying to authenticate the passage, to no avail, ever since it was first foisted on the American public around 1960. The late Rep. Morris Udall chronicled his own efforts to do so in an article published in The New Republic some 46 years ago. His query to the Library of Congress yielded this reply:
"We have searched the Legislative Reference Service files, checked all the standard reference works on quotations by Khrushchev, and consulted with the Slavic division of the Library of Congress, the Department of State, and the US Information Agency, in an attempt to determine the authenticity of this quotation. From none of these sources were we able to produce evidence that Khrushchev actually made such a statement."Small wonder. According to Paul F. Boller, John H. George, authors of They Never Said It: A Book of Fake Quotes, Misquotes, and Misleading Attributions (Oxford, 1989), the quote was, in fact, a "deliberate fabrication of some radical rightists in this country, who thought it summed up Khrushchev's attitude."
Here it is, still in use some 50 years later, the only difference being that now they want us to believe it sums up the attitude and agenda of Barack Obama.
And so it continues!
Comments
Disclaimer: I’m not a brainless neo conservative. For that matter, I’m not a neo conservative at all.
But nationalizing the banking industry, as Obama voted to do, and nationalizing the auto industries, as some Democrats are pushing for, is a step toward socialism.
The quote comes from Sect. of Ag. Ezra T. Benson. He said those were the words to him by Khrushchev. Audio tape available.
And Canada and Britain have National Health. Gee, my friends from Nova Scotia don’t see their homeland as communistic at all….
The main point against it is that it espouses the right-wing view of “communism” as some sort of uber socialism. The economic system (a liberal/progressive economic system) and the form of government (a conservative/authoritarian form of government) are related in some ways, but it is not rational for one who is informed about the differences to say that one is an extension or extreme form of the other.
That having been said, all political leaders say stupid things every once in a while, so it wouldn’t be completely out of the question for Kruschev to have said this. However, it’s up to us to react to such comments, and if we knew what WE were talking about we’d know that the “quote” carries no rational weight, authentic or not.
So if I said somebody said something, and put it on the internet, it makes it true?
I am 59 years old and maybe it was not worded in such a manner but he certainly indicated Russia would not have to fire a shot for America to turn to Socialism and anyone who believes the U.S.A. is a Democracy and not a scialist State is in need of a brain. Obama may expand on Socialism in the U.S. but we have been slowly but surely incarcerated into a prison system and our freedoms taken from slowly but surely we are the USSA
Frank, you speak of nationalising the banking industry and the car manufacturers. If public money is paying for these bailouts who do you think should own the recipients? As things are, the banking system has been given hundreds of billions, the pubic has had nothing in return, not even preference voting shares.
You’re robbing the poor to give to the rich. And this is socialism and therefore A Bad Thing? Get real, for goodness sake.
Er, make that ‘public’, not ‘pubic’. You have enough to worry about without needing free healthcare too.
Regarding the “bogus” Khrushchef quote, as a former Marxist, I assure youir that if he didn’t say it, he was thinking it, as well as all my other past Marxist fellows were, and still are.
Uh Huh!!Yes,The US Is a Democracy!!It’s Not a Theocracy or POlice State Either!!
Nor Did Our Founding Fathers Mean For It To Be!!
Now That That’s Settled,Let’s Be Rational Okay??The way I see It,There Are Radicals On Both Sides Who’d Love To wipe Their Butts With The Constitution!!
And It’s a Funny Thing,Why Is It When The Owner of a Pro Sports Team Wants The Taxpayers of a City To Build Him a New Stadium,It’s Called”Free Enterprise”But If The Government Decides To Have Health Care For The Poor and Uninsured,It’s”Socialism”
and/or”Communism”!!!
toidy toad no one i know calls either one anything but socialism. just because we let sports reams do it does not make it any tdifferent. when you take something from someone who earns it and give to someone who does not that is socialism. period!!!!!!
For god’s sakes, you people have to review writing, spelling, and grammar. And you need to learn how to think.
Toity toid makes a good point. The main difference in the examples used is the net gain. The capitalist ideology maintains that the new stadium is an investment that will generate revenue, improve tax base, employ hundreds, and so forth. In other words anticipated return on investment.
While “centralized” health care and so on is a noble idea, there is a preponderance of evidence against bureaucracies as viable managers.
Even so, that is not the root of the issue. The issue is one of control and responsibility. Since the earliest days of the American experiment, (the Jay Treaty for instance) power and control and government limitations have been the a central concern.
History shows us that when responsibility and self actualization are removed from the hands of the individual, those in authority are very reluctant to restore them and those who lost them, duped by their supposed ease, are often disinclined to elevate themselves to reclaim them.
This is a road that demands it be duly scrutinized for the present causes have lasting effects.
It was Thomas Paine who said “That government governs best which governs least.” (Common Sense, 1776) There may be wisdom in that. But that is just my opinion.
Here is the recording of Benson reporting on his meeting with Khrushchev (Thank you Richard.)via Glen Beck (Guess its not bogus David. May I suggest a retraction?)
Please ignore the context in which the broadcast aired (I did not vote for him but I support our President Elect and suggest we all do so.) Focus instead upon the principles discussed.
The Four Freedoms: On Socialism
To Tom Dibble:
On the contrary, those who are truly informed about politics and economics understand that the two are inextricably connected; and that one is in deed the impetus for the other.
Dray -
Presumably you mean to say that socialism is the impetus of communism, not the other way around?
1. If, as above, the definition of “socialism” includes everything from a modest progressive tax structure to elderly care, it would take a hell of a lot of “baby steps” in that direction to get to an egalitarian, classless society (communism’s prerequisite). If socialism is the redistribution of wealth, then it is completely unnecessary to a communist society, as all means of production are owned by the collective (no wealth to redistribute).
2. Assuming the number of socialist countries in Europe fall into your definition of “socialism”, why has this “impetus” not been sufficient to switch even a single one of them to a collective-ownership communist nation?
Please. This isn’t the 1950s anymore. We’re adults. We don’t need iron curtain boogeymen to guide our economic policies anymore.
What amuses me is that pretty much every “slippery slope” analogy is, at it’s core, a false urban legend. For instance, no, you can not boil a frog by increasing the temperature slowly over time. The same is true here; a society slowly changing over time to adopt more and more socialist programs does not wake up one morning and find it’s an authoritarian regime bent on world domination.
I mean to say that economics (exchange and acquisition of goods) is a major impetus for government. Capitalism allows for regulated free exchange, Communism is directed exchange, various social democracies are a combination of the two. All have sweeping social, civil and interpersonal ramifications.
On the contrary, the slippery slope is very real and applies not just to power, policy and politics. It can also apply to civility, morality, philosophy, etc.
The difference of opinion lies in whether the changes which DO occur (especially slowly in our government due to separation of powers)are progressive or digressive. And that depends on ones vision of the future. “Slippery slope” implies an opinion of digression. Like “That first cigarette is a slippery slope.”
I for one hold that any relinquishing of individual rights, including economic, to any form government is something that should be looked at very carefully, in the light of the lessons of history and with the wisdom of accurate and thorough foresight.
Tom Dibble and others should remember this; European countries, such as the U.K. who have state health care do NOT have superior health systems. The system works for the benefit of the (state) employees, not for the benefit of the customers (patients).
Employees are rarely dismissed for incompetence, have gold plated pensions (paid for by taxpayers), regular pay increases, monopoly trade unions, and no competition to make them try harder.
The British National Health Service is the third largest employer in the world after the Chinese Red Army and Indian Railways.
Yet, these 1.2 million people cannot manage to keep the hospitals MRSA and other bugs free, treat patients quickly (they “aim” to get patients to see a consultant – see not get treated – within 12 weeks), and now cost the U.K. taxpayers thousands of billions of pounds a year, (with billions more in future pension payments).
It can take a week to see a doctor (you are assigned to a practice). I once made an appointment because I couldn’t swallow and had cured myself with patent medicines before my appointment was due.
That is socialist medicine. It is now so bad that they are using private companies to clear the backlog of cases.
Keep the system you’ve got – if it ain’t broke don’t fix it!!!
H Hayes -
And yet, the US tends to rank near the bottom of the list of industrialized nations for overall quality of healthcare in EVERY study while we pay significantly MORE per capita for healthcare than any other country on earth. The US has long waits to see a doctor as well, and doctors here are incentivized to move bodies and prescribe fad medications rather than treat.
We just pay a hell of a lot more for the privilege.
H Hayes and Dibble,
I would agree that we pay a lot for health care. More particularly, it seems that costs both for medical treatment and for insurance are due for some serious regulatory oversight. In that regard, I would say that our system is broke and needs fixing.
I am extremely dubious about the statement that the US ranks near the bottom in terms of overall quality of health care. Our being both the wealthiest and healthiest nation on the planet is common knowledge (discounting our self induced ailments from over indulgence.) I should like to see the context of these studies you cite. I am particularly dubious of anyone who uses “EVERY” as a qualifier. Furthermore, as many current socialized countries amply demonstrate, most of the system ailments listed above tend to be not resolved but rather exacerbated via socialization as a solution.
On the other hand the costs, in many aspects beyond fiscal, seem to me to out way the intended benefits. As is too often the case with important issues, the desire for immediate relief frequently precludes a more holistic, long term vision.
“But nationalizing the banking industry, as Obama voted to do, and nationalizing the auto industries, as some Democrats are pushing for, is a step toward socialism.”
It is not “nationalizing” unless the government has at least controlling interest, which was not in any of the Bush Administation’s bailout proposals. The Bush Administration bailout proposals were a handout, welfare for the financial institutions who screwed the pooch. The proposal that was passed at least had provisions for the aid to be paid back through equity shares. If demanding payback of billions given to Fortune 500 corporations instead of handed the cash like Welfare checks is “a step towards socialism”, my friend, then I’m steppin’ towards Socialism.
The English Poor Laws, Social Security, unemployment insurance and representative government itself could be called “steps toward Socialism”, since they were slightly closer to Socialism than the policies that came before them. When are we going to stop being scared of a word?
When a word loses its meaning, then is the time to be afraid.
Whether or not Kruschev said anything about America becoming socialist in 1959 is totally irrelevant now – get real you guys, that was a damned long time ago, so how is it supposed to influence your thinking now? But when Obama voted to nationalise your failing banks he did so because they had dug themselves into a massive financial hole and there was no other way out of the messs, that does not make him a socialist. If you want to see what socialism is all about take a long hard look at us here in the UK and see the mess that Gordon Brown has dug us into with years of stealth taxes, selling off half our gold reserves at rock botton price and spending vast sums on non-essential quangoes and non-medical, managerial consultants to control our once fine Health Service. Notice too the fact that he is still digging, trying now to borrow us out of debt! (Of all things)
That, together with the bunch of control freaks that comprise his wretched government, is socialism gone mad! So beware of unexploded bums! Fortunately you do not appear to have any. Realise it and help Obama get on with what needs to be done!
“He meant to say it.” or “It was certainly in Kruschev’s mind.” is not exactly equivalent to “He actually said it.” The whole point of the article was to expose the alleged quotation as a fabrication, and its subsequent use as a propaganda tool. This is plain deception – a fact which apologists of the right seem to gloss over in justifying the spread of such a fabrication.
What happened here is that you all got baited into discussing communism, socialism, etc. and in so doing the attention was taken away from the deception, which suits their purposes just fine.
Maybe he didn’t say it word for word. But his view regarding our capitalist system vs. his communist empire, was one and the same. His quote: “I once said, “We will bury you,’ and I got into trouble with it. Of course we will not bury you with a shovel. Your own working class will bury you.” His implication is plainly seen as the underclass supposedly rejecting our capitalism, will embrace none other than communism. In this country, it may actually happen especially since a socialist media controls thought. Hence Goebbels’s famous quote: “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” Enough said.
PLEASE kill this thread! It died weeks ago, and doesn’t seem to realize it! Pull the plug!
Why are you guys still living in the past re’ what someone said or didn’t say 50 years ago.You are just a bunch of moaning minnies!
I agree with John (26), it is time to kill this and GET ON WITH LIFE. You have a new president, live with the fact and help him.
What about Norman Thomas’s “The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of ‘liberalism’ they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.”?
i see i understand (:
Noi offense but your investigative skills are what is bogus. The quote was made antecdotally by Ezra Taft Benson after the two met. Here is the link to the audio.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMzLgSuBr54
So a scribe did not write it but a witness accounted for the thought. Once again, the liberal tries to revise history quite in error and quite unsuccessfully.
I have seen several presidential elections come and go. Every four years both parties dig up a few of these old chestnuts, brush them off and use them to smear the other guy. We would be better off to listen to what the various candidates say instead of what someone says they said.
Here is my transcription of the RELEVANT part (the actual quote from Benson paraphrasing Kruschchev) from that ridiculously long and painfully boring talk radio bullshit (ten minutes of my life I will never get back). Ahem. Here is my transcription of Benson paraphrasing Kruschchev:
He [Kruschchev] arrogantly declared, in substance, “You Americans are so gullible. No, you won’t accept communism outright. But we’ll keep feeding you small doses of socialism until you finally wake up and find you already have communism. We won’t have to fight you; we’ll so weaken your economy until you fall like overripe fruit into our hands.”
This is, itself, a powerful quote; perhaps somewhat weakened by the fact that the speaker was himself very clearly biased and making a point, and that he was only paraphrasing what another person had said. Yet still a very stirring thing to hear. I hear Mr. Benson speak and I am still moved, fifty years later, by his words.
But Mr. Benson was not speaking of Obama. Those of you who are speaking of Obama, instead, feel the need to take these words out of Mr. Benson’s mouth, twist them into something fictional and put them into the mouth of Kruschchev. THIS COMPLETELY DESTROYS YOUR CREDIBILITY.. It is a lie to say that Kruschchev said those words, and if you have lied to me once, why should I believe anything else you say?
It was Bush, who even with Republican opposition, started the nationalization of US banks. BTW, we got screwed on that also.
8 years of Bush league failures has given us what the Soviets could not do.
Thank you (30) Ken for clearing it up. In essentially a private conversation this was said. It’s not on official documents for the simple fact that it wasn’t said in a situation FOR records.
Goodness, a lot of kicking and screaming about a quote said in private and always said in private. Benson says so in his speech that it was in just a conversation. Sheesh!
Does anyone here actually know what socialism is? It seems that the biggest way to scare people in this country is to say the word.
Actually, we have a mixed system here: Socialism for the rich (they do get government support for all their basic needs) and capitalism for the rest of us.
What are farm (and oil, and etc.) subsidies other than welfare? We hand billions to banks who then use part of the money for billions in bonuses for executives.
To toidy toid:
The US is not a democracy per se. We WERE a democratic republic, a representative democracy, set up by the founders so the majority couldn’t dominate the minority. We are currently on the slippery slope toward complete socialism.
And for those of you who think this is Bush’s fault, think again, and look at history before Bush. Liberals have been shoving their socialist crap down our throats for years, expanding government programs until they are so cancerous, we’d need major surgery to get rid of them…like a revolution with blood in the streets.
The crapstorm is coming…keep your powder dry.
Your comment about democracy is correct but your view on Pres. Bush are not. Pres. Bush in October set the table for Obama. What kind of a Pres. does that? One that is a moderate Repub. on public policies and the like! The libs should give high praise to him for what he has let happen. But no, they like to cut & run just because he won freedom for millions in Irag. Socialism is a cancer. It has been started years ago and will be the the down fall of our nation. Socialism is gutless. It’s the way the adversary destroys our freedom. As our government taxes us and the more they tax us it takes a small portion of our freedom from us. Obama is like good old stratch, not small socialism but advances in socialism that would make our founding fathers turn in there graves. It’s amazing to me that such a small man as Obama is can turn the head of such a great patriot as John Hancock, in who’s genealogy I am part of. I hope you libs feel good about yourself when you meet your god. Oh, I forgot, your god is mother earth. Good luck!!