5 ms·

Oppenheimer Was a Communist

6 points by xqcgrek2 3y ago

rbanffy 3y ago
Many people think "communist" is an insult when it's only having different priorities that do not align well with capitalism, and concluding capitalism is not the form of organizing an economy that best matches those priorities.
- quantified 3y ago
  One of the main problems has been with communism as it has been practiced. Not only does it take a lot of buy-in and not everyone feels communal, but the despotism that it has enabled has been really quite something. Just as "capitalism" is a set of experiments with failures and successes, "communism" might be. "Socialism" that shares the decision-making around is probably the better model.
  - rbanffy 3y ago
    There is a very large continuum described as communism or socialism that includes things such as anarco-sindicalism, christian socialism, among others. It's worth making the distinction that the economic and political models are not necessarily tied together - you can have a dictatorship with any economic model, as well as a democracy (even though unregulated capitalism seems to favor concentration of economic and political power).
    - quantified 3y ago
      Yes, in ideal capitalism I would be the sole shareholder in the company that owns and runs everything, including the military and judicial system which has been privatized completely into arbitration. Probably no one else shares that ideal, but probably thousands would agree it's ideal if they run and own everything. </s>
      - rbanffy 3y ago
        I believe there is a reasonable consensus about representative democracy, where we name people to have the (hard) job of making informed decisions on how an administrative unit should be run, being a really good option (as opposed to absolutist monarchies and theocracies). Minor differences on organization of the branches exist (in some, the judicial branch is in part elected, and in others, some people inherit lifetime seats at the legislative), but the 3-branch thing seems to be mostly settled in democratic states. There is no such consensus when it comes to how to best manage an economy.
        throwaway81523 3y ago
        > the 3-branch thing seems to be mostly settled in democratic states. The 3 branch thing specific to the US and a few other countries. Canada, the UK, most European countries, etc. don't have it. The executive branch equivalent in those countries (i.e. the Prime Minister, the minister of this and that, etc.) are instead appointed by the Parliament, the equivalent of Congress. It's sort of like how the congressional leadership (Speaker of the House etc.) is chosen here.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
- throwaway81523 3y ago
  The claim of the article is not about Oppenheimer's ideology. Rather, its claim is that he was at one point a member of a specific organization, the Communist Party USA, despite denying this later. His security investigation was something of a conflict between guys like Boris Pash, who saw communists everywhere and wanted to purge them, and John Lansdale, who defined a communist as "someone more loyal to Russia" than to the United States. This is described endlessly in "Lawrence and Oppenheimer" (written in the 1960s) and the more recent Oppenheimer biography "Inside the Center" by Ray Monk. I expect American Prometheus goes into all of it too, but I haven't read it. The Monk biography leaves open the possibility that Oppenheimer was once a CPUSA member and covered it up. He might have been, but his own hiring policy at Los Alamos was he willing to hire ex-CPUSA members as long as they were not current members.
  - rbanffy 3y ago
    I find treating members of the CPUSA as second-class citizens appalling and an affront to the freedom of speech and of political association, both cornerstones of any democracy. This is the reason for my comment - his political views towards how an economy should be organized are irrelevant. Would it be fair to deny security clearances (and this limit the kind of contribution they could make to society) to people who think healthcare should be universal and free, or that any anti-drug policy based on repression of the users is doomed to fail?
    - throwaway81523 3y ago
      The CPUSA was an organization with definite ties to the USSR and that might be why membership in it was treated as special. It was part of the Communist International (Comintern) that was headquartered in Russia. Its cells in some circumstances did actual spy operations on instructions from Moscow. So membership was a little bit closer to being a foreign agent than merely holding a viewpoint would make you. That article doesn't leave me with any idea what CPUSA membership actually was though. I know from another Oppenheimer bio that the organization had actual membership cards (thus "card carrying member"), but it sounds possible to be a member without a card. If yes, were you still on a membership list somewhere, like at the Comintern? Did you have to promise allegiance to the party, etc.? Idk.
francisofascii 3y ago
I don't think he actually was a communist, but liked to hang out with communist friends. He was more open minded and nuanced in his thinking to fit into a specific ideology.

6 points by xqcgrek2 3y ago

Many people think "communist" is an insult when it's only having different priorities that do not align well with capitalism, and concluding capitalism is not the form of organizing an economy that best matches those priorities.

quantified 3y ago
One of the main problems has been with communism as it has been practiced. Not only does it take a lot of buy-in and not everyone feels communal, but the despotism that it has enabled has been really quite something. Just as "capitalism" is a set of experiments with failures and successes, "communism" might be. "Socialism" that shares the decision-making around is probably the better model.
- rbanffy 3y ago
  There is a very large continuum described as communism or socialism that includes things such as anarco-sindicalism, christian socialism, among others. It's worth making the distinction that the economic and political models are not necessarily tied together - you can have a dictatorship with any economic model, as well as a democracy (even though unregulated capitalism seems to favor concentration of economic and political power).
  - quantified 3y ago
    Yes, in ideal capitalism I would be the sole shareholder in the company that owns and runs everything, including the military and judicial system which has been privatized completely into arbitration. Probably no one else shares that ideal, but probably thousands would agree it's ideal if they run and own everything. </s>
    - rbanffy 3y ago
      I believe there is a reasonable consensus about representative democracy, where we name people to have the (hard) job of making informed decisions on how an administrative unit should be run, being a really good option (as opposed to absolutist monarchies and theocracies). Minor differences on organization of the branches exist (in some, the judicial branch is in part elected, and in others, some people inherit lifetime seats at the legislative), but the 3-branch thing seems to be mostly settled in democratic states. There is no such consensus when it comes to how to best manage an economy.
      - throwaway81523 3y ago
        > the 3-branch thing seems to be mostly settled in democratic states. The 3 branch thing specific to the US and a few other countries. Canada, the UK, most European countries, etc. don't have it. The executive branch equivalent in those countries (i.e. the Prime Minister, the minister of this and that, etc.) are instead appointed by the Parliament, the equivalent of Congress. It's sort of like how the congressional leadership (Speaker of the House etc.) is chosen here.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
throwaway81523 3y ago
The claim of the article is not about Oppenheimer's ideology. Rather, its claim is that he was at one point a member of a specific organization, the Communist Party USA, despite denying this later. His security investigation was something of a conflict between guys like Boris Pash, who saw communists everywhere and wanted to purge them, and John Lansdale, who defined a communist as "someone more loyal to Russia" than to the United States. This is described endlessly in "Lawrence and Oppenheimer" (written in the 1960s) and the more recent Oppenheimer biography "Inside the Center" by Ray Monk. I expect American Prometheus goes into all of it too, but I haven't read it. The Monk biography leaves open the possibility that Oppenheimer was once a CPUSA member and covered it up. He might have been, but his own hiring policy at Los Alamos was he willing to hire ex-CPUSA members as long as they were not current members.
- rbanffy 3y ago
  I find treating members of the CPUSA as second-class citizens appalling and an affront to the freedom of speech and of political association, both cornerstones of any democracy. This is the reason for my comment - his political views towards how an economy should be organized are irrelevant. Would it be fair to deny security clearances (and this limit the kind of contribution they could make to society) to people who think healthcare should be universal and free, or that any anti-drug policy based on repression of the users is doomed to fail?
  - throwaway81523 3y ago
    The CPUSA was an organization with definite ties to the USSR and that might be why membership in it was treated as special. It was part of the Communist International (Comintern) that was headquartered in Russia. Its cells in some circumstances did actual spy operations on instructions from Moscow. So membership was a little bit closer to being a foreign agent than merely holding a viewpoint would make you. That article doesn't leave me with any idea what CPUSA membership actually was though. I know from another Oppenheimer bio that the organization had actual membership cards (thus "card carrying member"), but it sounds possible to be a member without a card. If yes, were you still on a membership list somewhere, like at the Comintern? Did you have to promise allegiance to the party, etc.? Idk.

francisofascii 3y ago

I don't think he actually was a communist, but liked to hang out with communist friends. He was more open minded and nuanced in his thinking to fit into a specific ideology.