Sad news. I first became aware of Pacepa during the early Obama administration. His work and commentary profoundly changed my thinking in a lot of different areas. For example, I had never credited the McCarthy era as having even the slightest of redeemable virtues, but Pacepa convinced me that the threat of Soviet influence in America was both real and deep, even if McCarthy’s machinations and demagoguery were not.
Ion Mihai Pacepa: 1928–2021
Published
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
The author write about our “flirtation” with socialism.
I did not know there was a move to take government control of the means of all production.
Yes, we will always have people touting socialism just like we have people pushing Biblical Law. Part and parcel of being in America. In the main, however, universal healthcare, affordable quality education, better wages and effective social safety nets are needed to protect capitalism as an economic reality.
Mistrust of government was the result of the Vietnam War and the lies from Washington that took good, hard investigative reporting to unearth. The death knell of trust was Gingrich (Reagan helped push that along, too). Add in the over the top attacks on media that are not cheerleading conservative ideology, and we foment conspiracies over truth.
Yes, communist disinformation was real. No it was not as pervasive as many would lead us to believe.
LikeLiked by 3 people
RE: “No it was not as pervasive as many would lead us to believe.”
Reading Pacepa, I became convinced it was more pervasive than many are willing to admit. I have posted evidence of this from time to time in the Forum, particularly examples of Soviet influence in the Civil Rights movement, plus other materials from a different Soviet defector with intelligence ties, Yuri Bezmenov.
LikeLike
How come lefties always try to pretend there is only one pure form of socialism? Democratic socialism, the theft of one person’s money to hand out to others, is alive and well. The Soviet disinformation tactic being utilized today is the constant drum beat of wealth envy and the “rich” don’t pay their “fair share”.
LikeLike
So sorry. I did not mean to define socialism correctly.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“How come lefties always try to pretend there is only one pure form of socialism?”
Sorry, but have this completely backwards. AGAIN. It is the RIGHTIES who claim that the only form of socialism is that practiced in Venezuela, while ignoring successful capitalist minded Social Democratic principles practiced in Europe.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “How come lefties always try to pretend there is only one pure form of socialism?”
I don’t know. I suppose it is a tactic for implying they are smarter than their opponents because, you know, they understand definitions. Marx wrote about this. Unless you understand his economic theories, you will suffer from “false consciousness.” Competing theories are by definition untrue and those who believe them are by definition unaware. A perfect bubble.
LikeLike
There is a big difference between “economic theories” and economic realities. Too bad you don’t appear to be able to differentiate.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“. . . a tactic for implying they are smarter than their opponents”
If you think you can ignore the definitions of important words and still carry on a meaningful adult conversation then I do not need to imply that I am smarter than you. It is self-evident.
“Socialism” does not mean “Any government program I do not like.” But that is how “conservatives” use the word all the time. And that is why they constantly say asinine things like “Joe Biden is a socialist.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
We are fortunate indeed to have you to point out self-evident things to us. But since there are many different ways social ownership of the means of production may occur in the world, I’d say there are potentially many opportunities to call Joe Biden a socialist when he supports them.
LikeLike
Yeah and T**** was a true conservative.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“… But since there are many different ways social ownership of the means of production may occur in the world…”
Well, don’t leave us all hanging. You just threw out a blanket statement that seems to argue that socialism is in the eye of the beholder.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for proving my point. You are willing – nay eager – to stretch the meaning of “socialist” beyond all recognition just so you call do a bit of name-calling instead of actually thinking.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“… they are smarter than their opponents because, you know, they understand definitions.”
Finally caught on, eh? 😇
I think if we are supposed to discuss socialism perhaps we should at least agree on what it means, don’t you?
That modern industrial nations have universal, affordable healthcare and education as well as decent labor laws, but still have robust capitalist economies that compete globally is not socialism.
LikeLiked by 2 people
When I came to the line . . .
“America’s recent flirtation with socialism concerned Pacepa greatly. ”
I knew that reading any further would be a waste of time. But, I did anyway. And I was right.
But I am sure that people who think those pesky Soviets were behind the Civil Rights movement enjoyed this reaffirmation of something they seem to doubt – Dictatorships and command economies are bad.
LikeLiked by 1 person